LETTERS 



TO 

N. WISEMAN, D.D. 

ON THE 

ERRORS OF ROMANISM, 

IN RESPECT TO THE 

WORSHIP OF SAINTS, SATISFACTIONS, PURGATORY, 
INDULGENCES, AND THE WORSHIP OF 
IMAGES AND RELICS. 

TO WHICH IS ADDED, 

AN EXAMINATION OF MR, SIBTHORP'S REASONS 

FOB HIS 

SECESSION FROM THE CHURCH. 

WITH A SUPPLEMENT. 
BY THE 

REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M, A. 

OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD. 

OXFORD, 
JOHN HENRY PARKER: 
J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
MDCCCXLII. 



PREFACE. 



The publication of the series of Letters now brought to a 
conclusion (at least for the present), was undertaken with 
a view to exhibit some of the most important features of 
Romanism in their genuine form. This task has become 
necessary in consequence of the system of Reserve so 
generally practised by Romish controversialists, in refer- 
ence to the more obnoxious parts of their system. 

The system referred to, studiously distinguishes the doc- 
trines and practices prevalent in the Roman Communion 
into two classes ; the former consisting of matters of faith, 
or doctrines defined by the Church ; the latter consisting 
of matters of opinion, or doctrines not so defined. The 
use made of this distinction in all writings and discourses in- 
tended for those who are opposed to Romanism, is to avoid 
all responsibility for, and all discussion on doctrines of the 
latter class, by representing them as mere non-essentials, 
which any member of the Roman Communion may dispute 
or reject at pleasure; while the attention of opponents is 
drawn entirely to the former class* of doctrines, which 
being commonly proposed in general terms and with great 
caution, are far less assailable. 

The benefits derived from this system are various. In the 
first place it induces some of those who are opposed to 
Romanism, to direct their attention almost entirely to the 
formal definitions of the Council of Trent, and to condemn 
some points which might be more discreetly left untouched. 
The effect of this is to create division amongst opponents, 
and to place some of them in untenable positions. Se- 
condly, all discussion is avoided on weak and vulnerable 
points, and there is no danger lest the popular mind should 



V 



PREFACE, 



be disturbed by doubts on the propriety of its most 
favourite notions and practices. Thirdly, it smooths away 
any opposition which might arise from Romanists them- 
selves if these doctrines were pronounced essential ; and 
facilitates their dissemination throughout the community. 
So that, in fine, the most highly objectionable tenets may be 
universally received amongst Romanists, and yet it may be 
positively denied that the Roman Catholic Church teaches 
those tenets. It has been a chief object in these Letters 
to detect and expose this system, which must be considered 
as more ingenious than honest. 

The Author is desirous to record his most settled con- 
viction, that evils are prevalent in the Roman Communion, 
of a far more dangerous character, than can be found else- 
where. In the present series of Tracts, only a small por- 
tion of those evils has been detailed ; but enough has been 
said to shew, that several doctrines of a dangerous and 
heretical character, and various practices which are most 
decidedly Idolatrous, are openly, and without censure, dis- 
seminated, sanctioned, and authorized amongst Romanists. 

Setting aside those sects which are bound by their pro- 
fession to reject articles of the Christian faith, there are 
perhaps few religious communities which would not, on the 
whole, contrast favotPrably with Romanism. A com- 
parison, not on insulated points, nor with any partial view, 
would suffice to shew, that any evils which may have arisen 
in connection with the Reformation, were more than coun- 
terbalanced by the evils of the opposite system ; and a 
more accurate knowledge of that system would enable us 
to do more justice to the principles of the Reformers, and 
to feel more gratitude for the results of their labours. 

It has been thought advisable to subjoin to this series 
of Letters, two Tracts in reply to the Rev, R. W. Sib- 
thorp's " Answer to the question, Why have you become a 
Catholic," and his " Further Answer/' &c. 



CONTENTS. 



LETTER I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

Dr. Wiseman's episcopal rank denied, p. 3, 4. Mr. Newman's 
language on Romanism explained, 6, 7, 8. Tactics of Romish 
controversialists, 9, 10. The decrees of Trent not the only au- 
thoritative teaching- in the Church of Rome, 12. Idolatrous ad- 
dresses to the Virgin by the present Pope, 13 — 16. Similar 
prayers approved by other Popes, 16, 17. Prayer of Cardinal 
Bona, 17, 18. Romanists responsible for these prayers, 19. 
Idolatry of Ligorio, 21 — 24. Of Girolamo, 24. Idolatrous 
addresses to Saints, 25 — 29. Indulgences and Purgatory are 
made to take the place of Heaven and Hell, 29 — 32. Pur- 
gatory a place of torture according to Romanists, 35 — 38. 
Images, 39. Miscellaneous remarks on Dr. Wiseman's 
Pamphlet, 41—49. 



LETTER II. 

ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF 
SATISFACTION, INDULGENCES, &c. 

Introduction, p. 3 — 7. Doctrine of temporal penalties due to 
remitted sin, 7 — 12. A large mass of error depends on this 
doctrine, 12 — 14. Its proofs from Reason examined, 15 — 23. 
Its scriptural proofs examined, 23 — 25. Specific objections to 
the doctrine, 36 — 41. 



VI 



CONTEXTS. 



LETTER III. 

ON SATISFACTIONS OR PENANCES. 

Romish doctrine of Satisfaction stated, p. 4 — 6. Requires per- 
petual penances, 7 — 11. Supposes the pardoned sinner still 
subject to God's wrath, 11, 12. Destroys all peace of mind, 
13. Makes Christians miserable, contrary to the Gospel, 14 — 
19. Burdens of this doctrine, and miseries endured by de- 
votees, 20 — 33, It leaves Christians without peace or hope, 
33—40. 

LETTER IV. 

ON THE SAME SUBJECT. 

Romish arguments in support of Satisfactions from Scripture, 
p. 4 — 12. From the Fathers, 12 — 17. Orthodox doctrine on 
this subject, 18 — 25. Proved from Scripture, 25 — 27. 
Romish doctrine refuted by the Fathers, 27 — 32. By the 
Council of Trent, 33. By Romish practice, 34. By Romish 
theologians, 35 — 38. Conclusions from the whole discussion, 
38—41. 

LETTER V. 

ON THE WORSHIP OF SAINTS AND ANGELS. 

Introductory remarks on Dr. Wiseman's reply, p. 3 — 6. Ro- 
maotsm convicted of Idolatry by his admissions, 6 — 15. His 
citations from spurious writings of the Fathers, 15 — 22. His 
defence of idolatrous addresses to the Virgin refuted, 23 — 44. 
His defence of idolatrous addresses to the Saints refuted, 45 — 
51. Testimony of Catholic Antiquitv against such addresses, 
51 — 79. Additional proofs of Romish Idolatry and Super- 
stition, 80—91. 

LETTER VI. 

ON PURGATORY. 

Introduction, p. 3 — 8. Doctrine of Purgatory stated and refuted, 
9 — 24. Romish arguments refuted, 24 — 50. Orthodox doc- 
trine opposed to Purgatory, confirmed by Scripture and Ca- 
tholic Antiquity, 51 — 75. Punishment not due to remitted 
sins, 75 — 77. 



CONTEXTS. 



Vll 



LETTER VII. 

OX INDULGENCES. 

Connection of Indulgences with privileged Altars and Churches, 
confraternities, associations, particular devotions, good works, 
&c. p. 3 — 12. Practical importance of Indulgences in the 
Romish system, 13 — 16. Doctrine of Indulgences refuted, 
16 — 22. Ancient doctrine of Indulgences, 23 — 25. Origin of 
Romish doctrine, 25, 26. Objections to it, 26 — 32. 

LETTER VIII. 

OX THE WORSHIP OF IMAGES AMD RELICS. 

Uneasiness of Romanists under the Charge of Idolatry, p. 3 — 7. 
Reasons for this, 7 — 9 . Idolatry what, 9 — 12 . Idolatry taught 
by eminent Romish divines, 13 — 36. Romish subterfuges, 
36, 37. Dangers of the system, 38 — 42. Conclusion, 42 — 47. 

EXAMINATION OF MR. SIBTHORP'S PAMPHLET. 

Evils of ill-regulated curiosity, p. 3 — 8. Mr. Sibthorp's mistaken 
application of Levitical institutions as typical of the Church, 
10 — 16. His argument for the Papacy refuted, 17 — 21. 
His argument against the continuity of the Church of England 
refuted, 21 — 28. His view of the unity of the Church unten- 
able, 28—30. Conclusion, 30—33. 

SUPPLEMENT. 

Refutation of Mr. Sibthorp's defence of his interpretation of the 
Levitical types, p. 3 — 10. Continuity of the Church of Eng- 
land, 11 — 15. Conclusion, 15, 16, 



A LETTER 

TO 

N. WISEMAN, D.D. 

(CALLING HIMSELF BISHOP OF MELIPOTAMUS,) 



CONTAINING REMARKS ON HIS 



LETTER TO MR. NEWMAN. 



BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A. 

OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD. 



SECOND EDITION, 



OXFORD, 

JOHN HENRY PARKER ; 
J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 

1841. 



BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD. 



A LETTER, 

SfC. 



Sir, 

Having ascertained from Mr. Newman that it 
is not his intention to make any reply to your 
Letter, (a resolution which, considering his recent 
labours, cannot excite surprise,) I take the 
liberty of offering to your notice certain remarks 
which the perusal of your Letter has irresistibly 
suggested, and I sincerely hope, that the " plain- 
" ness of speech" which, in a discussion of such 
importance, it is necessary to employ, will not be 
regarded by yourself or by others as indicating any 
want of respect for your abilities and attainments, 
or any deficiency in charity and good feeling. 

You will excuse me therefore, if I seem to ques- 
tion your right to the title of " bishop" which you 
assume, and which your adherents are willing to 
recognise. You, at least, cannot deny, that episco- 
pal consecrations, performed ostensibly for Churches 
without clergy or people, but really for the purpose 

a 2 



4 



LETTER I. 



of introducing or perpetuating schism, are illegi- 
timate, and confer no canonical mission or juris- 
diction a . You are aware, that such ordinations are, 
according to the Canons, virtually null and void ; 
and that they do not constitute those who receive 
them real bishops — successors of the Apostles. If 
therefore, as is reported, you have received the 
form of episcopal consecration at Rome, this does 
not prove you to be a bishop, or excuse you for 
exercising episcopal and sacerdotal functions with- 
out the license, and in opposition to the authority, 
of your legitimate Diocesan, the Bishop of Wor- 
cester ; an offence which subjects you to deposition 
and excommunication by the Canons received by 
the whole Catholic Church. 

You have availed yourself with characteristic 
sagacity of the existing controversy, to invite pub- 
lic attention to those views of Romish doctrines 
and practices, which the leaders of your party are 
anxious to impress on us. 1 rejoice for the sake 
of Truth that you have stepped forward so promptly 
in vindication of those views. It will afford an 
opportunity for testing their accuracy. Circum- 
stanced as Romanism is in this country, it is 
perfectly natural that its advocates should endea- 
vour to disembarrass themselves, as far as possible, 
of various doctrines and practices which have 
given serious offence. The interests of your com- 
munion are so obviously promoted by such a policy, 

a Dublin Review, vol. v. p. 288, &c. 



LETTER I. 



6 



that language and sentiments are tolerated under 
your circumstances, which in a purely Romish 
country would be visited with severe reprobation — 
perhaps, might put you in the prisons of the In- 
quisition. The end for which you labour sanctities, 
in the eyes of your superiors, means which they 
would otherwise view with jealousy and displea- 
sure. Romanists in England have long been deeply 
sensible of the obstacles which are presented to 
their system of proselytism by the existence of 
general prejudices (as they regard them) against 
the superstitions of their Church. They have felt 
with you, that "it is exceedingly difficult to think 
" differently from what every body about us has 
M always been thinking and saying. It is almost 
" impossible to stay the mind, when hurried on by 
" the press of those behind and on either side of us." 
(p. 19.) And as the general impression has been 
and continues to be, that superstitious and idol- 
atrous doctrines or practices are more or less 
authoritatively sanctioned by the Church of Rome, 
you avail yourself of the opportunity afforded by 
Mr. Newman's statement to that effect, to clear 
your Communion as far as you can from imputa- 
tions so injurious to its interests, and so distressing 
to your own feelings as an active agent in the 
system of proselytism. 

It will be my endeavour in the following pages 
to shew, that public opinion is not so grossly 
mistaken in these matters as you would fain have 



6 



LETTER I. 



us imagine, and that, while it would be undoubtedly 
most unjust to attribute superstitious and idolatrous 
notions or practices to those individuals of your 
Communion who disclaim them for themselves, the 
stain adheres most deeply to the community at 
large, and that the Roman is, emphatically, a cor- 
rupt Church. 

You have, as you imagine, detected at the com- 
mencement of Mr. Newman's Letter to Dr. Jelf 
an untenable position, and you direct against this 
assumed position a vast deal of argument more or 
less plausible ; but you have so obviously mistaken 
and misrepresented his views, that I can only 
account for the mistakes you have committed, by 
the haste with which you have rushed into this 
controversy. 

Mr. Newman states his persuasion, that the 
Thirty-Nine Articles " do contain a condemnation 
" of the authoritative teaching of the Church of 
" Rome" on the subjects of Purgatory, Pardons, 
Worshipping and Adoration of Images and Relics, 
the Invocation of Saints, and the Mass. He asserts 
indeed, and rightly asserts, (speaking generally,) 
that whereas those Articles " were written before 
" the Decrees of Trent, they were not directed 
ki against those Decrees*." But still, he maintains 
that the Church of Rome does, even now, in some 
sense authoritatively teach the errors and super- 
stitions against which the Articles are directed, 

" Letter to Dr. Jelf, p. 6. 



LETTER I. 



7 



and which were held by Romanists when those 
Articles were compiled. His next words are, 
" The Church of Rome taught authoritatively 
" before those Decrees (of Trent) as well as since. 
" Those expressed her authoritative teaching, and 
" they will continue to express it, while she so 
" teaches. The simple question is, whether taken 
" by themselves, in their mere letter, they express it ; 
" whether, in fact, other senses, short of the sense 
" conveyed in the present authoritative teaching of the 
" Roman Church, will not fulfil their letter, and may 
" not even now, in point of fact, be held in that 
" Church." (p. 6.) 

The meaning of this passage is obvious. It 
asserts as plainly as words can do, that the wording 
of the Decrees of Trent in some points may not 
convey doctrines which our Articles condemn ; 
while the interpretation generally given by the 
Romanists — their practical comment — the com- 
ment furnished by Authority exterior to the Council 
of Trent, is objectionable. Mr. N. in the next 
page explains that he is speaking of the 11 popular 
" system" of Romanism, and soon afterwards he 
mentions, " the comment which the Church of 
" Rome has put on them (the Decrees of Trent) 
4 ' in preaching and practice." (p. 9.) 

Having perused all these passages, you thus 
address Mr. N. 

" Your intention seems to be, as far as I can 
&i gather it from these and other passages in the 



8 



LETTER I. 



" Letter, to establish a distinction between the 
" doctrines defined or decreed in the General 
" Council of Trent, and the authoritative teaching 
" of the Roman Church.'' Certainly : so far you 
have caught his meaning. He undoubtedly does 
draw a distinction between the Decrees of Trent, and 
the authorized teaching of the Church of Rome on 
these points. That is, he is of opinion, that the 
words of the Decrees of Trent 11 fall short of the 
" sense conveyed in the present authoritative teaching 
" of the Roman Church." (p. 6.) The Decrees are 
encumbered by a practical comment which goes far 
beyond them. 

You now triumph in the persuasion that you 
have placed your opponent in an absurd position, 
and you ironically remark, 

" The existence of any such authoritative teach- 
" ing at variance with the doctrines of the Triden- 
' ' tine Synod, is to me a novel idea, and I think it 
" will prove so to all Catholics." (p. 5.) 

Permit me for a moment to arrest you in this 
hasty jump to a conclusion. You have correctly 
stated, that Mr. Newman maintains a distinction 
between the Decrees of Trent on these subjects, 
and the present authoritative teaching of the Church 
of Rome ; but surely distinction does not necessarily 
imply variance or opposition. You have studied 
so long in the Roman schools, that this cannot 
have escaped your observation. Why then do you 
so readily assume that Mr. N, would set the present 



LETTER I. 



9 



authoritative teaching of the Roman Church " at 
" variance" with the Decrees of Trent? 

You have commenced by mistaking the plain 
meaning of your Author, and in this mistake you 
steadily persist to the end of your Pamphlet. Excuse 
me, Sir, if, on further consideration, it appears to 
me that this mistake is not quite unintentional. 
One might hesitate indeed before one presumed 
to think, that so practised a controversialist as 
yourself had permitted any thing to escape from his 
pen inadvertently. Romish controversialists have 
before now found it convenient to close their own 
eyes* and to endeavour to close those of the public, 
against distinctions in which the turning points of 
controversy are involved. Nothing would be less 
in accordance with the system which has been 
adopted by the English Romanists in their con- 
troversies with us, than the recognition of such 
a distinction as that which you have assailed. 
The language of the Council of Trent has been 
your invariable refuge, whenever we have pressed 
you hard with the errors and superstitions prevalent 
in your Church. To this alone you would gladly 
direct our attention, as presenting the only exposition 
of doctrine authorized by all the Churches in com- 
munion with Rome. Whatever else may be held 
or practised amongst you, is, you would assure us, 
only a matter of private opinion or practice — quite 
unauthorized. And your Church is therefore to be 
held responsible for nothing but the guarded and 



10 



LETTER I. 



comparatively moderate statements of the Council of 
Trent. You would persuade us, that because idol- 
atry and superstition are not pronounced necessary 
to salvation by your Church — because you are not 
obliged to practise them under pain of Anathema — 
because they do not enter into the very language of 
the decrees de fide — your Church is quite free from 
the offence of allowing and authorizing them. You 
seem to argue, that because you may be Romanists 
without superseding the worship of God by that of 
the Virgin Mary, the Saints, Images, and Relics, you 
are therefore actually free, generally speaking, from 
the guilt of so doing. Your argument goes to prove, 
that a man who deliberately takes the life of another, 
is not a murderer, provided that his act is purely 
voluntary, and is not done in obedience to the law 
of God or of the Church. This is a very convenient 
system of argument indeed. It enables you to avoid 
any discussion on the weak points of your Church, 
and to raise an outcry against the prejudice and 
bigotry of those who would venture to impute 
superstitions or errors to the Church of Rome 
generally. It will be my endeavour to shew, that 
there is some authoritative teaching in the Church 
of Rome besides that of the Council of Trent, and 
vou will yourself afford testimony to the correctness 
of this position. 

But I return to your pamphlet. You ask Mr. N. 
what his reply would be, if you should assert that an 
interpretation at variance with that which he believes 



LETTER I. 



11 



"to be the only one reconcileable with catholic truth" 
is generally prevalent in the Church of England, 
and should thence argue, that the Church of Eng- 
land is " not to be judged by the Articles, but by 
" such authoritative teaching, and that therefore its 
" doctrines, and consequently itself, are not catholic." 
(p. 5.) The reply is obvious and easy. You have 
no reason to assume that Mr. N. believes his inter- 
pretation to be " the only one reconcileable with 
" catholic truth." He merely advances what appears 
to him a catholic interpretation. I am of opinion that 
the language of the Articles, and the circumstances 
under which they were written, point to an inter- 
pretation somewhat different from that advanced by 
Mr. N. and yet I have not the least doubt that he 
would readily admit the orthodoxy of that inter- 
pretation, though different from his own. Your 
premises therefore break down ; and your conclu- 
sion finishes in smoke. Supposing however, that, 
for the sake of argument, he were to admit, that 
the Articles are unsoundly interpreted by many 
persons, still that would not render the Church 
uncatholic, while such interpretations are openly 
opposed by many other persons of learning and 
authority, and while they are not recommended 
and urged by the authorities of the Church. When 
you can shew, that the idolatrous and superstitious 
doctrines and practices authorized in your Church 
are openly opposed and condemned by any influen- 
tial portion of its members, we shall be rejoiced to 



12 



LETTER I. 



relieve your Communion from imputations which 
must, until then, adhere to it. 

" It is a serious thing," you continue, 44 to charge 
" us with setting up the Blessed Virgin in place 
" of the Holy Trinity, and Purgatory instead of 
14 Heaven and Hell. We naturally ask, what shall 
44 be considered sufficient evidence of there being an 
" authoritative teaching, that supersedes the solemn 
44 and synodal Decrees of our Church, and makes us 
" responsible in solidum for its lessons ?" (p. 6.) To 
this question you have yourself in part furnished 
the reply in the next page, where you say, " To 
44 the teaching of the Roman schools, the Catechism 
44 of the Council of Trent, and the sentiments of the 
" best writers, I have no objections to make. But 
44 that you should give as evidence of authoritative 
44 teaching popular notions and practices is certainly 
" surprising." You therefore admit that there is 
some authoritative teaching in the Church of Rome, 
besides that of the Decrees of Trent, and of course 
you cannot hesitate to add to the sources of such 
authoritative teaching, the decrees of Roman Pon- 
tiffs, and the actions of canonized Saints, which are 
held up at this day for the imitation and edification 
of the whole Roman Church. I am perfectly satis- 
fied with the concessions you have made, and I 
believe there will be little difficulty in establishing 
on these grounds the substantial correctness of the 
positions which Mr. N. has advanced. Let us 
consider those positions for a moment. 



LETTER I. 



13 



Of " the present authoritative teaching of the 
" Church of Rome," he says, " Instead of setting 
" before the soul the Holy Trinity, and Heaven 
" and Hell,, it does seem to me, as a popular system, 
" to preach the blessed Virgin, and the Saints, and 
" Purgatory." — And again, "In the Roman schools 
' ' we find St. Mary and the Saints the prominent 
" objects of regard and dispensers of mercy, Pur- 
" gatory or Indulgences the means of obtaining it.** 
(P 7.) ' 

Without doubt, " it is a serious thing" to make 
this charge, and " it is a serious thing" for you to 
hear it made. You do not relish such plain speak- 
ing. I must however entreat you to bear with me, 
while I proceed to establish its substantial accuracy — 
while I demonstrate, that the Blessed Virgin, the 
Saints, Indulgences, or Purgatory, are commonly and 
authoritatively set before the souls of your people 
instead of the Trinity, Heaven and Hell, and viewed 
as prominent objects of regard, dispensers of mercy, 
or means of obtaining it. After this I shall proceed 
to consider the remainder of your Letter. 

1 . The Blessed Virgin is authoritatively set before 
your souls instead of the Trinity. 

It is not meant that the Roman Church disbelieves 
the Trinity, or never worships the Trinity, but that 
the Virgin receives honours which are due only to 
the Trinity — honours which interfere with the sole 
prerogatives of the Deity. The first proof of this 



14 



LETTER I. 



shall be derived from an authoritative document 
which all members of your Communion are bound 
to reverence. I mean, the Encyclical Letter of 
Pope Gregory XVI. addressed in 1832 to all 
Patriarchs, Primates, Archbishops, and Bishops, in 
which the following passage occurs, 

" We hasten unto you, Venerable brethren, and 
" as a sign of our good will towards you, we 
" address this letter to you, on this most joyful 
" day, when we solemnize the festival of the tri- 
" umphant Assumption of the Holy Virgin into 
" Heaven, that she whom we have acknowledged 
" as our patroness and deliverer amongst the greatest 
" calamities, may propitiously assist us while we 
" write, and by her celestial inspiration may guide us 
" to such counsels as may be most salutary to the 
tl Christian Church ." 

I need scarcely remark, that the passages printed 
in Italics distinctly invest the Virgin with the 
attributes of Deity. The holy Psalmist declares, 
that God is his " fortress and deliverer," (Ps. cxliv. 
2.)— his " help and deliverer," (Ps. xl. 17.) The 
Pope regards the Virgin Mary as his " patron and 
" deliverer." The Prophet Isaiah teaches us, that 
" counsel" is one of the seven gifts of the Holy 

c Ut quam patronam ac sospitam inter maximas quasque 
calamitates persensimus, ipsa et scribentibus ad vos nobis adstet 
propitia, mentemque nostram coelesti afflatu suo in ea inducat 
consilia, quae Christiano gregi futura sint quam maxime 
salutaria. 



LETTER I. 



15 



Spirit, (Is. xl. 2.) The Roman Church herself 
prays in the sacrament of Confirmation, " Emitte 
" in eos (confirmandos) septiformem Spiritum tuum 
" Paraclitum de ccelis, Spiritum sapiential et 
" intellectus, Spiritum consilii et fortitudinis," &c. 
(Pontifical. Rom. De Confirm.) I turn to the first 
treatise on the Trinity by one of your Professors of 
Theology that comes to my hand, and I there find 
that the Divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost 
is proved amongst other things by the fact, that the 
power of giving grace, of giving spiritual gifts, 
is ascribed to them in holy Scripture. (See Tournely 
de Trinitate, p. 384, 499.) And yet, notwithstand- 
ing all this, the Pope ascribes confidently to the 
Virgin Mary the very powers which Scripture and 
tradition give to the Holy Ghost. 

And now, Sir, perilous and idolatrous as such 
sentiments are, have they ever once been publicly 
objected to by a single member of your Com- 
munion ? Has any one of you ever dared to protest 
against this ascription of the attributes of Deity to 
a creature ? Will you yourself venture to utter a 
word in opposition to it ? I am afraid this would 
be rather too much to expect from any " Vicar 
" Apostolic." And why is it that the whole body 
of your Communion have remained silent, and 
refrained from uttering a word in censure of 
language so plainly savouring of heresy and 
idolatry? Why is it, that even those amongst 
you who may disapprove of such statements, have 



16 LETTER I. 

remained mute and confounded ? Because they 
emanate from Authority — an Authority to which 
you are obliged to submit > You have asked for 
some proof that the Virgin Mary is authoritatively 
put forward in your Church instead of the Trinity ; 
and I believe you have received a sufficient 
answer. 

I pass over another passage of the same revolting 
character at the conclusion of the Encyclical 
Letter, and proceed to other proofs which will 
further establish the character of the authoritative 
teaching in your Church. You will not deny the 
authority of the Litany of the blessed Virgin, 
printed at the end of the Roman Catechism 
compiled by Cardinal Bellarmine, and to the 
repetition of which, Indulgences were attached by 
Sixtus V, Benedict XIII, and Pius VII. At the 
conclusion of this is the following prayer. 

" We fly to thy protection, Holy Mother of God, 
" despise not our prayers in our necessities, but 
11 deliver us at all times from all evils, glorious and 
" blessed Virgin d ." The holy Psalmist placed his 
trust in God. " The Lord will be a refuge for the 
oppressed^ a refuge in times of trouble. " (Ps. ix. 9.) 
He consoled the afflicted of Israel by the hope 
that the Lord " will regard the prayer of the 

d Sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genetrix, 
nostras deprecationes ne despicias in necessitatibus nostris ; 
sed a periculis cunctis libera nos semper, Virgo gloriosa et 
benedicta. 



LETTER T. 



17 



destitute, and not despise their prayer." (Ps. cii. 17.) 
Our Lord himself taught us to pray to our Heavenly 
Father to " deliver us from all evil." And yet, in 
spite of all this, the Popes grant indulgences for 
the repetition of prayers which express the very 
same sort of confidence in the Virgin as the 
Scriptures teach us to feel towards God. 

I will here mention another prayer to the Virgin, 
to the repetition of which Pius VI. in 1786 granted 
Indulgences. It is as follows : " Condescend to 
" permit me to praise thee, sacred Virgin. Grant 
" me strength against thine enemies. Blessed be 
" God in his Saints 6 ." The " Stabat Mater," 
which has Indulgences annexed to its repetition 
by Innocent XI, is full of similar petitions f . But 
I will not dwell further on this branch of the 
subject. 

You wish for some proofs from your " best 
writers," or any of them, that the Virgin Mary 
is presented instead of the Trinity, and that she 
is regarded as the dispenser of mercy. You will 
readily admit the eminent learning and piety of 
Cardinal Bona. Hear then the following prayer 
extracted from his w r ritings. 

" Oh most sweet Virgin Mary, Mother of God 
" and our Lord Jesus Christ, refuge of sinners, 
" and mother of Mercy, I commit myself this day 
" and evermore to thy peculiar protection with most 

e Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 244. 
1 lb. p. 245. 

B 



18 



LETT EH I. 



" humble devotion. Place me near unto thee, and 
" protect me from all my enemies visible and invisible. 
" Say unto my soul, I am thy salvation. Direct 
" me thy servant in all my ways and actions. Con- 
i( sole me in all my griefs and afflictions. Defend 
4< and preserve me from all evils and dangers. 
" Turn thy face unto me when the end of my 
"life shall come; and may thy consolation, in 
" that tremendous hour, rejoice my spirit. Thou 
" canst do all that thou wilt in heaven and earth, 
" nor can any resist thy will, for thou obtainest 
" from the Almighty whatever thou seekest. Hear 
" therefore and receive my prayers, and despise 
" me not when I confide in thy mercy. Behold 
4f I fall down before thee, most gracious Virgin, 
" I fall down and worship in thee thy Son, and 
" I implore thy suffrages to obtain that my sins 
" may be blotted out, to reconcile the heart of thy 
" Son to my heart, that He may possess me, and 
" make me a man according unto his heart g ." 

If this prayer does not ascribe to the blessed 
Virgin the Divine attribute of" dispensing mercy," 
I know not what words can do so. She is addressed 
exactly in the terms which we should use in pray- 

& " In hora ilia tremenda consolatio tua laetificet spiritum 
meum. Omnia potes quaecumque vis in coelo et in terra 5 nec 

est qui possit resistere voluntati tuee Ecce procido coram 

te, benignissima Virgo, procido et adoro in te Filium tuum," 
&c. Jo. Bonse Presbyt. Cardinalis, Horologium Asceticum, 
§„ 2. Opuscula Spirit ualia, t. i. p. 13, 



LETTER I. 



19 



ing to the second or third Persons of the Holy 
Trinity. We see in it the same feeling of con- 
fidence in the protection of the Being addressed — 
the same degree of worship which is offered to 
Jesus Christ. " 1 fall down and worship in thee 
" thy Son." The Virgin Mary is worshipped with 
the honour due to God! You will not, I venture to 
say, express any disapprobation of this prayer, any 
more than of the sentiments of Gregory XVI. or 
of the authorized and indulgenced prayers which 
I have cited above. You will be satisfied to say, 
that such things are not enforced upon your con- 
sciences by the Decrees of the Council of Trent. 
Then if they are not, your guilt is so much the 
greater in practising them. By your own con- 
fession, such idolatrous invocations are not com- 
pulsory on 3'ou. They are therefore voluntary; 
and you are wholly without excuse or justification. 
Tt is in vain to allege that they are not universally 
approved or received. What proofs can you afford 
of this assertion ? When have you yourself pro- 
tested against them ? Who amongst you lifts up 
his voice against them ? You content yourselves 
with general disclaimers of superstition and idolatry, 
but you will never venture to lay your finger on 
any specific case amongst the thousands which are 
authorized amongst you. 

But I have not concluded this branch of the subject 
yet. I have to adduce a third branch of evidence, the 
authority of which you, at least, will scarcely deny. 

b 2 



20 



LETTER I. 



I allude to the " Lives of St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. 
" Francis de Girolamo, &c. whose canonization took 
'■' place on Trinity Sunday, May 26, 1839." Of this 
publication you are the reputed Editor*, and if you 
are unwilling to avow your connection with it, you 
cannot hesitate to admit the authority attached to 
the actions and sentiments of Saints recently canon- 
ized, after the strictest and minutest investigation 
of their lives and conduct by the highest tribunals 
in the Roman Church — actions and sentiments 
which had been brought under the special notice 
of those tribunals, and which are now published 
(probably by yourself) for the general edification 
and imitation of Roman Catholics. Let us then 
see what is thus authorized by your Church. I 
extract the following from the Life of St. Alphonsus 
Liguori. 

" His loving patroness, our blessed Lady, re- 
" warded his zeal in the cause of charity and 
" devotion by appearing to him in the sight of an 
" immense crowd of people collected in the Church 
" of Foggia to listen to a discourse upon his /«- 
" vorite subject, the intercession and patronage of 
" Mary. From her countenance a ray of light, 

b At the end of the Catholic Directory and Annual Register 
for the year 1841, I find in the Catalogue of Books of " F. A. 
Little, Catholic Bookseller and Stationer," the following : — 

Works by the Rev. Dr. Wiseman. 
The Lives of St. Alphonsus Liguori, &c. 



LETTER 1. 



21 



" like that of the sun, was reflected upon the face 
" of her devout servant, which was seen by all the 
" people, who cried out * a miracle! a miracle!' 
" and recommended themselves with great fervour and 
66 many tears to the Mother of God; and many 
" women of abandoned life were seized with such 
" intense sorrow, that they mounted upon a plat- 
" form in the church, and began to discipline 
" themselves and cry aloud for mercy ; and then 
" leaving the church, retired to the house of 
" penitents in that city. Alphonsus, in his judi- 
" cial attestation, deposed, that during the Sermon, 
" he, together with the assembled audience, saw the 
" countenance of the blessed Virgin resembling 
" that of a girl of fourteen or fifteen years of age, 
" who turned from side to side, as was witnessed 
" by every one present'." 

" Whilst he was preaching on the patronage of 
" the blessed Virgin, and exciting his hearers to 
" recur with confidence to her in all their wants y he 
" suddenly exclaimed, 6 O, you are too cold in 
" praying to our blessed Lady! I will pray to her for 
" you, 1 He knelt down in the attitude of prayer, 
f with his eyes raised to heaven, and was seen by 
" all present lifted more than a foot from the 
" ground, and turned towards a statue of the blessed 
t< Vifgin near the pulpit. The countenance of our 

K Lives of St. Alphonsus Liguori, &c. p. 12. Dolman, Lon- 
don, 1839- 



22 



LETT Kit I. 



" Lady (the statue!) darted forth beams of light, 
" which shone upon the face of the ecstatic Alphon- 
" sus. This spectacle lasted about five or six 
" minutes, during which the people cried out, 
" ■ Mercy, mercy! a miracle, a miracle F and every 
" one burst into a flood of tears. But the Saint 
" rising up, exclaimed in a loud voice, ' Be glad, 
"for the blessed Virgin has granted your pray er k '" 
Now, Sir, with every disposition to avoid uncha- 
ritable or general imputations of idolatry, and to 
allow the sincerity of those amongst you who dis- 
claim it, T cannot refrain from expressing to you 
the horror and amazement which such a scene 
inspires. Here is a Saint of your Church — a Saint 
canonized only two years ago, and after the most 
rigid investigation of all his actions by the highest 
authorities amongst you. — This Saint excites his 
hearers to " recur with confidence to the Virgin in 
" all their wants," as if she were a Deity. He 
follows this up by kneeling down and " praying" 
to the Virgin. — Observe, not seeking her intercession, 
but praying to her. A miracle is wrought to sanc- 
tion this impiety ; and that nothing may be wanting 
to complete the abomination of the scene, this 
miracle is wrought, while the Saint is in an attitude 
of adoration before the image of the Virgin, and while 
that, image itself becomes, as it were, animated, and 
testifies the presence of the Virgin within it ! This 
is the teaching which you place before the members 



LETTER I. 



23 



of your Church. This is the teaching which your 
Saints inculcate — your Cardinals and your Pope 
approve and authorize — and which you yourself 
print and publish for the edification of the faithful ! 
But I pass on to another example of the same 
teaching. 

" He established confraternities amongst his 
" flock, as a means of inducing them to frequent 
" the Sacraments, and to hear the word of God, 
" and maintained the spirit of their foundation by 
" frequently preaching to them ; and one evening, 

j ? whilst he was preaching during a retreat to the 
" confraternity of gentlemen at Arienzo upon the 
" patronage of the Blessed Virgin, he was on a 
" sudden wrapt in ecstasy, and his countenance 
" shone with such splendour, that the whole Church 
" was lighted up with unusual brightness ; and he 
" exclaimed, 6 See, the blessed Virgin is come to 
dispense graces amongst us ; let us pray to her, and 
( * we shall obtain whatever we ask 1 ' " 

When Moses descended from the mount with 
these words of God, " I am the Lord thy God. 

I " Thou shah have none other Gods but me" the skin 
of his face shone, and they were afraid to come 
nigh him. Liguori is invested with an equally 
miraculous splendour, while he declares that the 

I Virgin is a Goddess—while he asserts that she 
" dispenses graces/' or is invested with the attri- 
butes of the Deity, and while he admonishes the 
l lb. p. 35. 



24 



LETTER I. 



people to address her as an all-powerful Being ! 
Which would you have us believe ? Or is this 
fable intended to turn the Scripture itself into 
ridicule and contempt, and to afford Infidels the 
means of opposing Revelation to Revelation, and 
arguing the absurdity of the whole from its contra- 
dictions ? I turn to the life of another of your 
recently canonized Saints, St. Francis di Girolamo, 
where, after some mention of his love of Christ, the 
following passage occurs. 

" In like manner he was tenderly devoted to our 
" blessed Lady. For twenty-two years he preached 
" a Sermon in her praise and honour every week. 
" To youth especially, it was his custom to recom- 
" mend this devotion as the surest preservative of 
" innocence, and the best remedy against sin ; saying 
" that one could hardly be saved who felt no 
" devotion towards the Mother of God. Mary was 
" his counsellor in doubt, his comfort in toil, his 
" strength in all his enterprises, his refuge in danger 
" and distress. He experienced an inexpressible 
" delight whenever he recited the Rosary of our 
" blessed Mother." Lives of Liguori, &c. p. 101. 

I leave this passage to speak for itself. It 
requires no comment. If ever idolatrous reverence 
was felt for a created being, it certainly was in this 
case ; and yet this is an example which the autho- 
rities of your Church hold up for general admira- 
tion ! With such facts before the public, you have 
the confidence to ask for evidence that the Virgin 



LETTER I. 



25 



and the Saints are set up instead of the Holy 
Trinity. Can you ask for better evidence than 
that which has been given ? I have not quoted 
antiquated documents — I have not cited a thousand 
idolatrous passages from your books of popular 
devotion and other unauthorized sources — I have 
not referred to " local abuses" or " popular 
superstitions/' but to the highest and most un- 
deniable authorities in your Church. They convict 
you of all that has been alleged against you, and 
you may writhe beneath that conviction, but you 
cannot escape from it, except by shewing what it 
is impossible to shew, that the errors and idolatries 
which I have pointed out, have been resisted and 
protested against in your community. 

2. The Saints are authoritatively placed before 
you instead of the Trinity. That is, they share 
the honours of the Deity — they receive honours 
which are only due to God. 

In proof of this I again appeal to the Encyclical 
Letter of Gregory XVI, where, near the con- 
clusion, he thus addresses all the Bishops of the 
Roman Obedience. 

" We will also earnestly beseech with humble 
" prayers from the Prince of the Apostles, Peter, 
" and from his co-Apostle Paul, that you may stand 
" as a wall, that no other foundation be laid but 
" that which has been laid. Relying on this 
" delightful hope, we trust that the author and 



26 



LETTER I. 



" finisher of our faith, Jesus Christ, will at length 
" console us in all our tribulations. (Id et ab 
" apostolorum principe Petro, et ab ejus co-apostolo 
" Paulo humili prece efflagitemus, ut stetis omnes 
" pro muro, ne fundamentmn aliud ponatur praeter 
" id quod positum est. Hac jucunda spe freti, 
" confidimus auctorem consummatoremque fidei 
" Jesum Christum consolaturum tandem esse nos 
" omnes in tribulationibus, &c") 

To avoid mistakes it may be necessary to observe, 
that the " foundation" here alluded to is not the 
Saviour, but the established doctrine and discipline 
of the Roman Church, the dangers of which deeply 
excite the Pontiff's grief and alarm. In this 
passage then St. Peter and St. Paul are distinctly 
invested with the attributes of Divine Providence^ 
They are supposed to give grace and power to the 
Bishops — to confirm them in the faith. No prayer 
whatever is addressed to any Person of the blessed 
Trinity, No supplications are offered to our Lord, 
but it is hoped that in consequence of the prayers 
addressed to the Virgin Mary and the Apostles 
Peter and Paul, he will console his Church. St. 
Mary, Peter, and Paul, guard and protect the 
Church-— our Lord consoles it! Such is the system 
taught by authority. 

Do you wish for further evidence? It shall be 
immediately supplied. 

Pius VII. by his decree of the 28th April, 1807, 



LETTER I. 27 

granted 300 days of indulgence to all who should 
devoutly use the following invocations " 5 . 

" Jesus, Joseph and Mary, I offer to you my heart 

" and my soul. 
" Jesus, Joseph and Mary, assist me in my last 
41 agony. 

" Jesus, Joseph and Mary, may my soul expire in 
" peace with you.''' 

This, Sir, is a new Trinity, wholly unknown to 
Scripture or to Catholic Tradition. 

Pius VI. by a Brief dated 2d October, 1795, 
granted an Indulgence of 100 days to the faithful 
who repeat the following prayer to their guardian 
Angel. 

f f Angel of God, who art my guardian, enlighten 
" me who am committed to thee with heavenly 
" piety, guard, direct, and govern me. Amen." 
Bouvier, p. 248. 

Pius VII. by his Rescript of September 21st, 
1802, granted a year's Indulgence, applicable to 
the dead, to every Catholic priest, who should 
recite the following prayer. 

" O, holy Joseph, guardian and father of Virgins, 
" to whose faithful care Christ Jesus, who was 
" Innocence itself, and Mary, Virgin of Virgins, 
■■ was committed, I beseech and pray thee by both 
• - these dear pledges Jesus and Mary, to preserve me 
"from all uncleanness, and make me ever most 
" chastely to serve Jesus and Mary, with an un- 
" defiled mind, a pure heart, and a chaste body, 
111 Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 226, 



28 



LETTER I. 



c< Amen. (Te per hoc utrumque charissimum 
" pignus Jesum et Mariam obsecro et obtestor, 
" ut me ab omni immunditia prseservatum, mente 
" incontaminata, puro corde, et casto corpore Jesu 
" et Marise semper facias castissime famulari. 
" Amen.)" Bouvier, p. 265. 

In this prayer Joseph is addressed as a Deity — 
a Being who has the power of bestowing divine 
grace, and of enabling Christians to serve God. 
The Son of God is made a sort of Mediator between 
Joseph and his worshippers; and, in fine, the service 
of Christians is supposed to be divided between 
Jesus and Mary ! And yet this is a prayer sanc- 
tioned by the highest authority in your Church, and 
unscrupulously published in your most approved 
practical Treatises on Indulgences. 

I shall only extract, in addition, the following 
prayer from one of your best and most approved 
Authors, Cardinal Bona. 

" Holy Angels, seals of the Divine likeness, full 
" of wisdom, perfect in beauty, be present with me 
" and defend me from the assaults of evil spirits, 
" from the frauds and snares of the enemy. Inflame 
" me with that fire which the Lord sent on earth, 
" and which he desired to burn vehemently. Ye 
" seven Spirits which stand before the Lord ever 
" prepared to do his bidding, succour a wanderer 
" in this vale of tears. Cleanse me from all 
" filthiness, and infuse into my mind the splendour 
" of the saints, that all earthly matter being con- 
< e sumed, I may burn wholly with divine love, and 



LETTER I. 



29 



" become one spirit with God for ever. Thou St. 
" Michael, most glorious Prince of the celestial 
" army, helper of the people of God, receiver of 
" the elect souls, who hast fought with the Dragon 
" and conquered, come to my assistance in this 
" doubtful battle, which I, unarmed and feeble as 
" I am, must wage with a most powerful foe . . . You, 
" ye other saints of God, to whose patronage I have 
" intrusted myself, and whose feast is this day 
" celebrated, assist me a miserable sinner sitting in 
" darkness and the shadow of death. Dissolve the 
" bonds of my captivity, &c." Bona, Oper. Spiri- 
tual, t i. p. 13, 14, 15. 

I believe it would be needless to adduce any 
more proofs that Saints and Angels receive in your 
Church honours which are only due to God. 

3. I am now to shew, that your Church regards 
Purgatory or Indulgences as " means of obtaining 
" mercy," and that they are preached " instead of 
" Heaven and Hell." Do not suppose that I mean 
to assert, that Heaven and Hell are not believed or 
preached amongst you. I only contend, that In- 
dulgences (which are connected with Purgatory) 
are made to take the place, which Scripture and 
Catholic tradition assign only to considerations 
connected with the eternal state; that they are 
presented to the consciences and the hopes of your 
people, to influence them to the performance of 
duties which ought only to be urged on the 
motives of the love and fear of God. This is 



30 



LETTER I. 



what we complain of. We see good works urged 
amongst you on motives which obscure and in- 
terfere with the grand and simple motives which 
Revelation places before us. When we would 
excite our brethren to the performance of good 
works, we can but say to them, " Yield yourselves 
" unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, 
" and your members as instruments of righteousness 
" unto God." (Rom. vi. 13.) We can but quote 
to them our Saviour's words, " If ye love me, keep 
" my commandments .... He that hath my com- 
" mandments and keepeth them, he it is that 
" loveth me ; and he that loveth me shall be loved 
" of my Father, and I will love him, and will 
" manifest myself unto him." (John xiv. 15 — 2^) 
And again, " Lay up for yourselves treasures in 
" heaven, where neither the rust and moth doth 
" corrupt, and where thieves do not break through 
" nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will 
"your heart be also." (Matt. vi. 20, 21.) These 
are the only motives which Scripture and Tradition 
place before us. Our works are to be done simply 
in reliance on God's assistance, and with a view to 
shew forth our love and obedience to Him, without 
which we should forfeit eternal life. Not so with 
you. Every good work has in your eyes a very 
different sort of value. It is a satisfaction for sins, 
it is a means of obtaining so many days or years of 
Indulgence from the tortures of Purgatory. 

Are your people to be excited to visit the sick, 



LETT I- R I. 



31 



to give alms to the poor, to hear mass, to repent of 
their sins and confess to a priest, to receive the 
holy Eucharist, to pray for the extirpation of 
heresies, the propagation of the Catholic faith, and 
for the Church generally ? You promise them a 
plenary Indulgence on certain feast-days in the 
year". Do you wish to excite the people to repeat 
devotional offices during their life, and to recom- 
mend their souls to God at the hour of death? 
You promise them Indulgences. (Ib. p. 185.) Is it 
your desire that they should instruct their children, 
relations, or servants, in the Christian doctrine ? 
You offer them two hundred days of Indulgence for 
doing so. (p. 185.) They meditate on our Saviour's 
passion to gain a hundred days of Indulgence, 
(p. 186.) They examine their consciences, and 
repent of their sins, resolve to amend them, and 
recite the Lord's prayer, to gain the same amount 
of Indulgence, (p. 186.) They accompany the holy 
Sacrament when it is brought to the sick ; endea- 
vour to bring -back into the right way those who 
have wandered from it ; and practise other good 
works in honour of our Lord. And for what 
reason ? To gain an Indulgence of a hundred 
days. (p. 191.) Is it considered desirable to pro- 
mote the spirit of prayer ? One indulgence is 
promised to all those who instruct the people to 
meditate or to offer prayer, and another to all who 
offer prayer every day for half or a quarter of an 
J Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 183, 184. 



32 



LETTER I. 



hour. (p. 213.) In short, there is not a good work 
or a devotional practice amongst you, which is not 
presented as a means of obtaining Indulgences. 
Your whole system depends on the popular belief 
in Indulgences, and the popular wish to obtain 
them. Your confraternities, your charitable and 
religious works of all kinds, are vitally dependent 
on them. The promise of future glory, the desire 
to shew love and gratitude to Him who redeemed 
us with His own blood, are insufficient to excite 
your people to the discharge of Christian duties. 
They require the stimulant of Indulgences to rouse 
them into activity. And what are those In- 
dulgences ? Which of the Fathers ever wrote a 
treatise on Indulgences, or even mentioned them ? 
Were they known to Augustine, to Chrysostom, to 
Gregory, or to any of the Fathers for a thousand 
years after Christ ? You are well aware that there 
is a profound silence in Christian Antiquity on this 
subject ; that the only Indulgences known for a 
thousand years were remission of canonical punish- 
ments imposed in this life. And this novelty it is, 
which now constitutes the moving power of your 
religion, and which usurps amongst your people 
that influence which Revelation assigns to Heaven 
and Hell — to the love and the fear of God. 



Having now completed the first part of my task, 
and shewn that the public is not so grossly 



LETTER I. 



33 



mistaken as you would persuade us, in the 
view which it takes of the superstitions prevalent 
amongst you, I return to the consideration of your 
Letter. 

You assure us, that throughout the whole course 
of your residence in the Eoman schools you " never 
" heard a word that could lead you to suppose that 
" our blessed Lady and the Saints are, or ought to 
" be, the 'prominent objects of regard/ or could be 
" 4 dispensers of mercy/ nor that 'Purgatory or 
" Indulgences are the means of obtaining it/" &c. ; 
and you have, as you say, " always there heard and 
" taught exactly the contrary." (p. 9.) In a certain 
sense, perhaps, the Professors in the Roman Uni- 
versity may not maintain those doctrines ; but I 
would ask, whether you have ever heard any con- 
tradiction offered by them to the scandalous and 
blasphemous positions which have been above cited 
from authorized sources ? Until you have shewn 
this, they and you yourself must be held responsible 
for those positions. 

You argue, from the shortness of the Treatises on 
Invocation of Saints and Purgatory in your theolo- 
gical course, that there could have been no intention 
to supersede the worship of the Trinity by the one, 
and the preaching of Heaven and Hell by the other. 
This seems to me a very bad argument, for surely 
we are not to judge of the practical importance of 
a doctrine by the extent which its discussion oc- 
cupies. A Treatise on the Trinity involves many 

c 



34 



LETTER I. 



difficult questions, and therefore occupies more space 
than one on the Invocation of Saints. Yet it does 
not follow that the Trinity itself is practically more 
worshipped and honoured than the Saints. 

What has heen just observed applies equally to 
the argument from your Catechisms. The Trinity, 
Incarnation, and Creed, may be, as you say, the 
principle articles of instruction, (p. 13.) They 
may occupy most space, and yet the worship of 
the Virgin, and the Saints, and Purgatory, may 
practically be " the main subjects" put before the 
popular mind. 

You are indignant at Mr. N.'s assertion, that, 
with reference to Purgatory, " the main idea really 
" encouraged by Rome is, that temporal punishment 
" is a substitute for Hell in the case of the unholy/' 
and you characterize this doctrine ascribed to you 
as " wicked and fiendish." (p. 14.) What, Sir, are 
you not well aware, that, according to your Church, 
" the unholy," those who are guilty of mortal sin, 
are, by the sacrament of Penance, relieved from the 
punishment of Hell, and made subject only to tem- 
poral penalties ? It is your doctrine that Hell is the 
penalty annexed to mortal sins which have not been 
remitted by the sacrament of Penance, and that 
temporal punishment in this life or the next, follows 
sins which have been thus remitted. I shall not 
occupy your time in attempting to prove what is 
the well-known doctrine of your Church — a doctrine 
which was evidently in Mr. N.'s mind, when he 



LETTER I. 



35 



employed the expressions which have excited your 
wrath. 

Mr. N. has quoted from the Catechism of Trent 
the following passage, which, he says, " expresses 
" the existing Romish doctrine." 

" There is a purgatorial fire, in which the souls 
44 of the pious are tormented for a certain time and 
££ expiated, in order that an entrance may lie open 
" to them into their eternal home, into which 
44 nothing defiled enters." 

Your reply is, that 44 it is unnatural and a fallacy" 
to " put the Catechism at variance with the Council 
4 4 which ordered it to be drawn up" — that we must 
suppose persons who had been members of the 
Council u deliberately contradicting their own acts," 
&c. Now, Sir, the fallacy, permit me to say, is all 
your own. Mr. N. never adduced the Catechism 
of Trent as " at variance" with the Council, or as 
" contradicting" the Council. He merely adduces 
it as expressing 44 the existing Romish doctrine," 
which he most correctly distinguishes from the 
Decrees of Trent, without meaning that there is 
any opposition between the two. He asserts nothing 
more than what you yourself admit — that it (the 
Catechism) 44 employs the usual language in which 
44 a doctrine is spoken of in the Church" of Rome, 
(p. 1 5.) That it is invested with authority in your 
Church you cannot deny, though it may not be 
binding on you in the same sense as the Decrees 
of Trent. 

c 2 



36 



LETTER I. 



You quote the Theology of Perrone to shew, that 
Romanists are at liberty to speculate on the nature 
of Purgatory notwithstanding the Decrees of Trent. 
He remarks, " that questions relating to the place, 
" duration, and quality of the punishment there 
44 inflicted, do not pertain to the catholic faith, or are 
44 not defined by the Church." I have not Perrone^s 
work in my possession ; but I would ask, whether he 
does not add to the above statement, that the doc- 
trine of a purging material fire is the general and 
most probable opinion of theologians ? Perhaps in 
the next edition of your Letter you would furnish 
us with the entire passage. This however is clear, 
that " the language of every (Roman) Catholic 
44 theologian" goes rather further than you would 
wish us to think. I turn to Bellarmine first. His 
words are, "It is certain, secondly, that one pu- 
" nishment of Purgatory is the want of the Divine 
44 vision. ... It is certain, thirdly, that besides this 
44 punishment, there is also some other, which theo- 
44 logians call punishment of sense (pcenam sensus). 
44 It is certain, fourthly, that there is in Purgatory, 
44 as also in Hell, & punishment of fire, whether that 
44 fire be understood literally or metaphorically, and 
44 whether it signifies punishment of sense, or of 
44 loss, as some prefer to say. (Certum est, quarto, 
'* in Purgatorio, sicut etiam in Inferno, esse pcenam 
44 ignis, siveiste ignis accipiatur proprie, sive meta- 
44 phorice, et sive significat pcenam sensus, sive 
" damni ut quidam volunt)." Bellarminus de Pur- 



LETTER I. 



37 



gatorio, lib. ii. c. 10. I am afraid, Sir, that the 
liberty here allowed will not afford any great 
consolation to those who are fearful of the torments 
of Purgatory. Whatever they be, they are, it seems, 
the same sort of punishments as those of Hell ! 
And this too is a matter of certainty ! 

The next chapter of Bellarmine's Treatise is thus 
headed, " Cap. x. Ignem purgatorii ipse corporeum; 9 
and commences thus : cc It is the general judgment 
" of theologians, that the fire (of Purgatory) is truly 
" and properly such, and of the same species with our 
" elementary fire, (communis theologorum sententia 
" est, verum et proprium esse ignem, et ejusdem 
11 speciei cum nostro elementari.) Which judgment 
" is not indeed de fide, because it has no where 
" been defined by the Church ; yea, in the Council 
4 ' of Florence the Greeks openly professed that they 
" did not admit fire in Purgatory, and yet in the 
" definition made in the last session, the existence 
" of Purgatory is defined, without any mention 
" of fire. Yet it is the most probable doctrine. 
" (Tamen est sententia probabilissima.)" 

In chapter xiv. De gravitate pcenarum, we 
find, that " the Fathers constantly teach that the 
" pains of Purgatory are most fierce (atrocissimas,)" 
and that " no pains of this life can be compared to 
" them, (et cum illis nullas pcenas hujus vitse com- 
" parandas ;)" and that "in a certain sense all 
" (writers and others) admit, that the pains of Pur- 
s( gatory are greater than those of this life J' 



38 



LETTER I. 



Such, Sir, is the doctrine of the Father of your 
modern theologians, " the prince of controver- 
" sialists," as he is styled by your friend Mr. 
Phillipps ; and this doctrine still continues to be 
that of your theologians, as Delahogae declares, 
when speaking of questions on the subject of 
Purgatory, he says, " whether they (souls in 
" Purgatory) be shut up in some dark prison, or 
" be tortured by some fire, as theologians commonly 
" hold, (vel igne aliquo torqueantur, ut communiter 
" sentiunt theologi)" — " cannot be certainly af- 
" firmed." Delahogue, De Pcenitentia, p. 304. 

I need not proceed further with citations from 
your theologians. Those will suffice to shew, 
that although the doctrine of a material and 
torturing fire in Purgatory is not an article of faith 
in your Church, it is by far the most probable and 
popular opinion, and I very much doubt whether 
you could point out any instances of writers or 
preachers in your Communion maintaining in 
public the contrary doctrine. You would yourself, 
I doubt not, have been regarded as a heretic, or as 
a person " suspected of heresy," had you ventured 
to maintain in Italy, that the punishment of Purga- 
tory is not " material fire/' but the " want of the 
" Divine Vision." The general belief and doctrine 
is quite opposed to such notions, and this is what 
is obviously meant, when it is asserted, that the 
doctrine of the Catechism of Trent with regard to 
Purgatory " expresses the existing Romish doctrine." 



LETTER I. 



39 



I am wearied, and I fear my readers will be 
wearied, with a refutation of all your errors and 
false-reasonings, but I must continue the ungracious 
task. 

You send us to the statement of the Catechism 
of the Council of Trent with reference to Images, 
and ask, whether such statement is " an authorita- 
" tive teaching which supersedes the Decree of Trent," 
or " sanctions on the subject of images more than 
" it warrants/' The Catechism, as quoted by you, 
says, " As the enemy of mankind, by his wiles and 
" deceits, seeks to pervert every the most holy 
" institution, should the faithful happen at all to 
" offend in this particular, the pastor, in accordance 
tc with the Decree of the Council of Trent, will use 
" every exertion in his power to correct such an 
" abuse, and when occasion offers, will explain the 
"Decree itself to the people, %c." (p. 16, 17.) 
Certainly, Sir, the authority of the Decree of Trent 
is here recognised. No one ever for a moment 
doubted that it was fully received in your Churches. 
But let me observe, that no definition whatever is 
given of what really are abuses. The people may, 
according to the doctrine of Alexander de Hales, 
Thomas Aquinas, Cajetan, Bonaventura, Marsilius, 
Almayn, Carthusianus, Capreolus, Vasquez, and 
a host of your most approved writers, pay the 
worship of Latria or Divine honours to the images 
of Christ. (Bellarm. De Imag. ii. 20.) They may, 
with St. Thomas Aquinas, (Summa, 3. 25. 4.) and 



40 



LETTER I. 



the Schoolmen, worship the true Cross or its image 
with the adoration of Latvia. They may believe in 
the miraculous powers of the images and relics of 
the Saints ;— may make pilgrimages to them — may 
carry them in procession during plague and other 
public calamities ; and may put their trust in them. 
But the Catechism of Trent does not say a word 
against such idolatries and superstitions. It merely 
refers to the Decrees of Trent, which are equally 
silent ; and the explanation of those Decrees which 
the Priest is to give, may be in exact accordance 
with the errors which I have mentioned. So far for 
any safeguard supposed to be furnished by this 
Catechism ! You refer us to what the Catechism 
says of the " worship of Saints." (p. 17.) Undoubt- 
edly it recognises what all your well-informed theo- 
logians theoretically hold — that Divine worship or 
Latria is not due to the Saints. No man in his 
senses would gravely maintain such an absurdity. 
And yet notwithstanding this, the Virgin and the 
Saints do practically (and by authority too) receive 
honours due only to God. 

You call (p. 17.) for " the testimony of all or 
" any of your best writers/' in favour of " preach- 
<( ing the blessed Virgin, the Saints, and Purga- 
" tory," instead of " the Holy Trinity, Heaven, 
" and Hell." This challenge has been answered, 
and if it be necessary, I can easily add a thousand 
other proofs. Be it observed too, that it has been 
answered not merely from the " statements of 



LETTER I. 



41 



* travellers/' or " the assertions of the great body 
" of writers against you," or " popular notions of 
" Roman Catholics;" (p. 19.) but from authorita- 
tive documents, from your own approved theolo- 
gians and writers. 

Yes, Sir, we do hold that the " tacit sanction," 
(p. 20.) which the members of your Churches give 
to the idolatries and superstitions alluded to, is the 
deepest stain upon them. You are surrounded by 
notions and practices which every enlightened 
Christian must most deeply disapprove. You see 
them sanctioned by the highest authorities in your 
Church, greedily received by the people, and endan- 
gering their salvation. And yet you give them 
your " tacit sanction." Which of you dares to 
uplift his voice, and warn the people against the 
delusions in which they are involved ? No ! This 
would be too great a triumph to those whom you 
call " heretics," and therefore you gently and in 
general terms warn them against superstitions. 
You never enter into particulars, or denounce this 
or that doctrine or practice as contrary to sound 
religion. We praise your caution ; but is this 
Christian honesty ? Is this the duty of Bishops ? 
Is this even the best mode of relieving your 
Church from the imputations which are now 
thrown upon it ? 

You enquire whether " any extent of corruption 
" or sanctioning error by the members of a Church, 

if at variance with its acknowledged formularies, 



42 



LETTER I. 



" deprives the Church of the benefit of these, and 
" warrants its being treated as having admitted a 
" new faith ?" (p. 20.) I must profess, that to the 
question thus broadly put, none but an affirmative 
answer can be returned. I suppose you would not 
yourself deny, that a Church which openly rejected 
the doctrines of the Trinity, or the Divinity of 
Christ, even though it admitted the Nicene Creed, 
would be heretical. But we do not contemplate any 
such paradoxical case, in maintaining that the doc- 
trines and practices taught and received by autho- 
rity in your Church, go far beyond the wording of the 
Decrees of Trent. We do not pretend that the doc- 
trines generally received amongst you supersede 
those Decrees. All that is meant is, that they are 
your doctrines, and that you have no right to fall 
back on the wording of the Decrees of Trent, as if 
you were responsible only for them. We cannot 
permit you to escape so easily. 

It is in vain therefore that you attempt to involve 
in self-contradictions, (p. 20.) those who admit that 
the Western Church before the Reformation had 
not ceased to be a true Church, and yet maintain 
that the existing Roman Church sanctions and 
authorizes idolatrous and erroneous doctrines. 
There is no inconsistency in their views. They 
allow that the Western Church before the Reform- 
ation was deeply culpable ; that most serious cor- 
ruptions had become prevalent ; yet still they do 
not deny her claim to be a part of Christ's Church, 



LETTER I. 



43 



though a corrupt one ; because there had been no 
definition of errors, and no imposition of idolatries, by 
any authority to which every member of the Church 
was bound to submit his own judgment. In like 
manner, though they see much that is erroneous, 
and objectionable, and presumptuous in the Decrees 
of the Council of Trent ; and though they see idol- 
atries and grievous errors sanctioned by the autho- 
rities of your Church, and generally received ; still 
they are not prepared to say, that the Churches in 
communion with Rome have ceased to be Christian, 
because it seems to them that individuals may and 
do continue in your Communion without practising 
or holding what is contrary to the Articles of the 
Christian faith. But notwithstanding this, they 
consider your Churches as corrupt, and as most 
deeply culpable in sanctioning corruption ; and 
they hold you responsible for the errors and idol- 
atries against which you do not protest. You will 
not be able to point out any inconsistency in this. 

But you come to the question of fact, and demand 
what evidence there is that popular notions " go 
" beyond a sound faith respecting our blessedLady ?" 
(p. 21.) I think you have had evidence enough. 
Would you wish me to quote the popular formu- 
laries of devotion ? They are at hand, if there be 
any further call for evidence. You describe to us 
the religious exercises of an Italian peasant, (p. 22, 
23,) and forget to state, that Indulgences are attached 
to the performance of them all. In the authorized 



44 



LETTER I. 



form of Christian instruction used at Rome, and 
compiled by Cardinal Bellarmine, the only religious 
exercises recommended are the daily repetition of 
the " Pater" and"Ave,"and the Rosary of 'the Virgin. 
The latter is thus mentioned. " M. What exer- 
14 cise have you for keeping up devotion (Ch' esercizio 
" avete per mantenere la divozione) ? D. I say the 
" Rosary of our Lady, and I continually meditate 
" on the fifteen mysteries of the said Rosary, 
" in which is contained the Life of our Lord Jesus 
" Christ." If, as you say, (p. 24.) your people do 
not think it sinful to " neglect their devotions to 
" the blessed Virgin," of which I should be glad to 
have some evidence beyond your mere assertion, it 
does not prove that they do not offer idolatrous 
prayers and worship to her. 

We do not pronounce that all who pay honours 
to images " have renounced their faith, and 
" abjured their God." (p. 25.) We have every 
reason, however, to fear, as well from doctrines 
maintained by many of your theologians and never 
censured, as from appearances (which you yourself 
allow to be against you, p. 24.) that very many 
amongst you do give directly idolatrous worship to 
images, and put their trust in them. We see 
no attempts made to arrest the grossest super- 
stitions. They are acknowledged to be abuses, and 
there the matter rests. 

You complain that the " devotional feelings" 
of Roman Catholics with reference to images 



; 

If 

LETTER I. 45 

" are taken as tests of their convictions and faith." 
(p. 25.) I must confess that there seems to me 
nothing unreasonable in this test. If the " devo- 
tional feelings" of an Italian towards the Virgin are 
greater than towards his God, I cannot but think 
that (whatever his faith may be in theory) the 
Virgin is practically his God. It is idolatry to love, 
or confide in, or worship any creature above God, 
or instead of God, or equally with God. A faith 
which brings forth no fruit of " devotional feelings," 
which permits those feelings to fix on other objects 
than God, is a dead faith. 

You, who have talked so slightingly of travellers' 
accounts of religion in Romish countries, (p. 19,) 
should not have attempted to furnish us with 
anecdotes of your own. You hold up the conver- 
sation of a boy at Psestum, as a proof, that the 
peasants of Italy have no exaggerated notions of the 
Virgin. The final question was well put, and well 
answered; 4 ' Could she have redeemed you?" 
" Not unless her Son commanded her." (p. 26.) 
This seems to you conclusive as to the soundness 
of the boy's faith. To me it does not. The boy 
may have believed that the Virgin could redeem him 
by command of the Son of God — that she was in fact 
his saviour, his patroness, his only hope— that his 
duty was to place his trust and confidence in her — 
and that devotion to her was sufficient for his salva- 
tion. All this he may have believed, notwithstanding 
his recognition of the superior Deity of Jesus Christ. 



46 



LETTER I. 



As you have favoured us with one anecdote, 
I shall add another, in illustration of the opinions 
of the middling classes of Irish Romanists. — A 
gentleman of strict veracity, with whom I am 
intimately acquainted, and from whose lips I 
received the following account, was one day 
conversing with a remarkably intelligent and re- 
spectable farmer of the Romish persuasion, a fifty 
pound freeholder in the county of Tipperary. The 
conversation turned on the Virgin Mary, when my 
friend enquired, " What reason Roman Catholics 
" had for worshipping the blessed Virgin?" The 
reply was, " Because she is the Mother of God." 
" Well, but that does not prove that she is God, 
" or that she ought to be worshipped !" Answer. 
" She is the Mother of God, and therefore must be 
et worshipped as well as God. If we worship the 
ff< Son, we must worship the Mother also." " Well, 
" but you do not mean to say that the Virgin was 
" the Mother of God as regards his Divine nature ? 
" She was surely a human being before she became 
" the Mother of our Lord, and could she then have 
" become God?" This seemed to stagger the man 
for a moment, but he soon replied : " Oh, she is 
M the Mother of God, and therefore we must 
" worship her. This is our belief." My friend 
found it impossible to dislodge him from this 
position, or to convince him that the Virgin 
Mary was in any respect inferior to our Lord 
himself. 



LETTER I. 



47 



As to the Roman Ritual for the Visitation of the 
Sick, to which you refer us, (p. 27,) it may have 
received comparatively little of modern addition, 
and may therefore retain in some degree the pure 
doctrines of Catholic antiquity. Is this any proof 
that the Virgin and Saints are not idolatrously 
worshipped on other occasions ? Your impression 
of the sentiments of the lower orders of Roman 
Catholics during your experience " in the hospitals 
" of the eternal city" is certainly favourable. 
Perhaps others might have been able to give a 
somewhat different account. 

To your personal appeal to Mr. Newman, (p. 30,) 
I have nothing to say in particular. I suppose you 
would scarcely ask him to refrain from expressing 
opinions in opposition to your errors, which have 
been formed on a full examination of the subject. 
You have no right to impute to him any haste or 
want of consideration in what he has written. I 
have no doubt that he is satisfied of the truth of 
what he has said against you, and that he will be 
always prepared to maintain it. 

Jn reply to Mr. N.'s remark, that " the only 
" thing which can stop this tendency [to practical 
" idolatry] in the decrees of Rome [about Images 
" and Relics] as things are, is its making some 
"formal declaration the other way;" you ask, 
" What extent of formal declaration would satisfy 

" you?" "In what manner would you have 

" the Church of Rome draw up and promulgate 



48 



LETTER I. 



" a declaration that should be more satisfactory 
" than all those various declarations [at present 
" existing] put together ?" (p. 31.) 

I am glad, Sir, to have one point of agreement 
with you before I close this Letter. The difficulty 
you have suggested is most perplexing. It would 
indeed be difficult to devise any general disclaimer 
of superstitions which could not be evaded by the 
ingenuity of your theologians, and which would 
leave no loop-holes for idolatry and superstition. 
But, Sir, we will be content with a much simpler 
and easier mode of clearing your Church from the 
imputations which now so justly rest on her. Let 
her prelates, her clergy, and her theologians, no 
longer remain satisfied with assuring us that we 
misunderstand their religion. Let them no longer 
confine themselves to the attempt to hoodwink us, 
by appealing to the Decrees of Trent, and denying 
that any worship of the Virgin and Saints and any 
notions of Purgatory which are not there expressed 
are binding on them ; as if that very circumstance 
did not increase the guilt of those who receive and 
those who sanction such abuses. Let them refrain 
from canonizing and publishing lives of Saints 
crammed with the most scandalous idolatries and 
blasphemies. Let them protest against authorized 
and sanctioned abuses — prayers to Saints investing 
them with the attributes of Deity — worship of 
images pushed to idolatrous excess — Indulgences 
viewed as ends of Christian exertion — devotion to 



LETTER I. 



49 



creatures instead of the Creator — repeated sacrifices 
of Christ. Let them proclaim the grand and simple 
sanctions of Christianity, and exhort men to. look 
far above human inventions and the intercession of 
creatures, to Him, who as God and Man is alone 
able to mediate with Almighty efficacy between the 
Creator and sinful man. Let us see this, and we 
shall then indeed rejoice to relieve your Church 
from those accusations, which we are now, in deep 
sorrow, compelled by Christian truth to lay to its 
charge. Let us see this, and there will be few if 
any obstacles to the restoration of that peace, which 
we desire, if possible, still more earnestly than 
yourselves. 

I have the honour to remain, 
Sir, 

Your obedient Servant, 

WILLIAM PALMER 

Oxford, April 12, 184L 



BAXTER, PR1KTKH, OXFORD 



BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 



Just published, 

A SECOND LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. on the FOUNDATION 
of the ROMISH DOCTRINES of SATISFACTION, INDULG- 
ENCES, PURGATORY, and SUFFRAGES for the DEAD. 
Price \s. 

A THIRD LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. on the ROMISH 
DOCTRINE of SATISFACTIONS. Price Is. 

A FOURTH LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. on the ROMISH 
DOCTRINE of SATISFACTIONS (concluded). Price Is. 



Nearly ready, 

A FIFTH LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. on the DOCTRINE 
of PURGATORY. 



%* This Series of Letters will be continued, 



A 



SECOND LETTER 

TO 

N. WISEMAN, D.D. 

ON THE 

FOUNDATION OF THE ROMISH DOCTRINES 

OF 

SATISFACTIONS, INDULGENCES, PURGATORY, 

AND 

SUFFRAGES FOR THE DEAD. 



BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M A. 

OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD. 



OXFORD, 

JOHN HENRY PARKER ; 
J. G, F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON, 
1841, 



BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD. 



A SECOND LETTER, 

Sfc. 



Sir, 

You have yourself commenced the present con- 
troversy, and can therefore have no reason to com- 
plain if I pursue the path which you have opened. 
You have afforded an opportunity for entering 
on a discussion and refutation of doctrines com- 
monly and authoritatively taught in your Com- 
munion ; an opportunity which seems to bear the 
impress of a Providential design, and of which 
I avail myself with the utmost joy, under the 
expectation that, amidst the excitement which 
evidently pervades the minds of Romanists in 
this country, and the spirit of enquiry which exists 
amongst them, and which cannot in all instances 
be repressed, the doctrines of Scripture, of Tradi- 
tion, of the Roman Church herself (rightly under- 
stood), may be heard amongst you — heard, it may 
be, with rage and opposition by some — but still 
heard, and felt to be unanswered — heard perhaps 
with docility by others, and made the means of 

a 2 



4 



LETTER II. 



their extrication from a mass of dangerous and 
pernicious error, if not of their restoration to that 
way of salvation, the true Church of Christ, from 
which they are at present, under the mysterious 
will of God, severed. 

In the name of Christian truth and sincerity 
I hope, that no measures may be taken by those 
who are in authority amongst Romanists, to check 
the spirit of discussion which has lately so much 
distinguished them. If Romanism be the truth, 
it will not shrink from an examination into its 
merits. If it be conscious of strength, it will 
courageously meet its opponents in the field of con- 
troversy. There will not be any attempt to 
stifle discussion and enquiry, as was the case lately, 
when the authorities of your Communion at Oscott, 
interfered to prevent the continuance of private 
correspondence between a clergyman in this Uni- 
versity of the highest Church principles, and the 
Hon. and Rev. Mr. Spencer, which was on the 
point of bringing back the latter unhappy indivi- 
dual to the fold of Christ from which he had strayed. 
This most valued convert of yours came to this 
University brimfull of expectation that he should 
obtain some valuable accessions to your ranks — and 
he narrowly escaped being converted himself to 
the very Church he came to assail. 

There cannot be any impropriety, any spirit of 
unprovoked aggression, in continuing my comments 
on the errors and superstitions of your Church, 



LETTER II. 



5 



when it is remembered, that the Press has, for 
years, been teeming with the controversial publi- 
cations of Romanists, inviting attention to the 
pretended merits of their religion, and assailing 
those of the Catholic Church in England ; when 
Societies are instituted with the avowed intention 
of perverting the faithful to your schism ; when 
you are loud in your boastings of the success of 
your system of proselytism ; when you seem to 
" live, and move, and have your being'' in assailing 
our Religion by every method temporal as well 
as spiritual ; and when no views, however moderate, 
however orthodox, however harmonizing with those 
of Catholic Antiquity, can protect their advocates 
from your interference, and from your controversial 
attacks. May it not be justly enquired, " Is there 
" not a cause V y Is it not time to expose your 
sophistries, to hold up your contradictions to the 
world, and to drag your errors and superstitions 
forth into the face of day, and assail them with 
the weapons of Truth ? 

You have vainly imagined, that because the 
study of Catholic Antiquity has recently acquired 
a new importance— because men are no longer 
satisfied with superficial and popular systems of 
divinity, but view Scripture in its own light, re- 
flected in the writings of the holy Martyrs and 
Saints of old ; and because the primitive Church 
in all its parts has become the object of admiration 
and the model for imitation— (not always with strict 



6 



LETTER II. 



judgment, I admit,) you have imagined, I say, that 
this movement was destined to promote your 
objects, and to bring converts to you. You have 
been buoying yourselves up with this hope, not with- 
out occasional misgivings that it might prove 
delusive in the end. You have indeed been cora- 
pelled to assure your people, that men who studied 
Christian Antiquity, with a disposition to submit 
to its doctrines, could not fail to become Romanists ; 
for had they been permitted to think any other 
result possible — had they been made aware that 
the study of Catholic Antiquity would only rivet 
men in their opposition to Romish errors, they 
might have been led to doubt w T hether those errors 
were really supported by Catholic tradition, as you 
pertinaciously and loudly assert them to be. 

But, Sir, Time will dissipate these vain prog- 
nostics, these empty and baseless visions. If there 
has been in any instance, what might seem to 
afford any countenance to your hopes — if there has 
been, in any case, any seeming approximation to 
your errors, it has arisen from incaution or indis- 
cretion of mind — from the hasty writing or think- 
ing of men undisciplined in the crafty and cautious 
language of Jesuitism — from any thing but love of 
the errors of Romanism. If I am not mistaken, 
(and I have more opportunities of knowing the 
intentions of the writers alluded to than you can 
have,) there has never been any intention to afford 
countenance to your errors and superstitions, but, 



LETTER II. 7 

on the contrary, a hearty wish to adopt the very 
best and soundest methods of refuting them. It 
may be, that the popular line of argument against 
you did not seem very judicious to the persons 
alluded to, and that they have sought for other and 
more convincing arguments. It may be, that their 
attention has been directed chiefly to the strength- 
ening and beautifying of their own Church, and 
that they have not turned aside to assail your 
errors. But this, Sir, however it may excite 
transitory hopes, cannot long mislead you. Already 
you are beginning to open your eyes to the truth, 
and to assail those whom you professed to regard 
as the friends of Romanism. A little time will 
suffice to develope the truth more fully, and will 
teach the world what sort of reason you have to 
rejoice at the spread of Church principles. 

In my former Letter, your doctrine of Indulg- 
ences and Purgatory was briefly noticed, with a 
view to shew, that the tenets authorized in the 
Church of Rome had not been unfairly represented 
I must now invite your attention to some further 
observations on the same subjects, and on some 
other branches of your doctrines connected with 
them. 

I need scarcely point out to your sagacity, that 
a Tast body of your doctrines and practices to 
which we object, depends altogether on one prin- 
ciple, which is as it were the foundation-stone, the 
very vital essence of the wholec I mean, your 



8 



LETTER II. 



doctrine of a debt still remaining due to Divine 
Justice after the remission of sin — the doctrine of 
temporal punishments to be endured for sin after its 
eternal penalty has been remitted. It is the 
doctrine of your Church, that by the Divine Law, 
temporal as well as eternal penalties are due to sin; 
that while the latter, together with the guilt of sin, 
are remitted in the Sacrament of Penance, the 
former still remain due to Divine justice ; and that 
they may be averted by works of satisfaction, such 
as prayer, fasting, and alms-deeds, and by the 
suffrages of the Church, especially by the sacrifice 
of the holy Eucharist. Let me, in order to make 
my meaning still clearer, extract from your own 
writings a very clear and accurate exposition of the 
doctrine in question — an exposition which is per- 
fectly in accordance with the tenets of all your 
divines on this subject. 

" Now let us come to the remaining part of the 
" Sacrament [of Penance]. We believe that upon 
" this forgiveness of sins [in it], that is, after the 
" remission of that eternal debt, which God in his 
" justice awards to transgressions against his law, 
" he has been pleased to reserve a certain degree 
" of inferior or temporary punishment, appropriate 
" to the guilt which had been incurred ; and it is on 
4< this part of the punishment alone, that, according 
" to the Catholic doctrine, satisfaction can be made 
" to God. What the grounds of this belief are, I 
" will state just now. At present, I wish to lay 



LETTER II. 



9 



€ ' down the doctrine clearly and intelligibly ; that 
" it is only with regard to the reserved degree of 
" temporal punishment that we believe the Chris- 
" tian can satisfy the justice of God\" 

I must also avail myself of your subsequent 
description of the Romish doctrine on this subject. 

" The doctrine which is thus collected from the 
" word of God, is reducible to these heads : 1 . That 
" God, after the remission of sin, retains a lesser 
" chastisement in his power, to be inflicted on the 
" sinner. 2. That penitential works, fasting, alms- 
" deeds, contrite weeping, and fervent prayer, have 
C( the power of averting that punishment. 3. That 
ce this scheme of God's justice was not a part of 

the imperfect law, but the unvarying ordinance 
<£ of his dispensation, anterior to the Mosaic Ritual, 
" and amply confirmed by Christ in the Gospel. 
" 4. That it consequently becomes a part of all 
" true repentance to try to satisfy this divine 
" justice, by the voluntary assumption of such 
" penitential works, as his revealed truth assures 
V us have efficacy before him." 

" These propositions contain the Catholic doctrine 
11 concerning Satisfaction V 

This, Sir, is a very fair and correct statement of 
the doctrines taught in all parts of your Church , 

a Lectures on principal doctrines and practices of the 
Catholic Church, vol. ii. p. 41, 42. 
b Ibid. p. 47. 

c Vide Catechism. Concil. Trident. Pars ii. De Pcenitentiae 
Sacramento, c. xc ; Bellarmin. De Pcenitentia?, 1. iv. c. ii, 



10 



LETTER II. 



and it is quite consistent with the following decrees 
of the Council of Trent ; though in this, as in other 
cases, your authorized doctrines go beyond the 
definitions of that Conventicle. 

il If any one saith, that the whole punishment is 
if always remitted with the guilt [of sin] by God, 
44 and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing 
" but the faith by which they lay hold on Christ's 
" satisfaction for them ; Let him be Anathema. 

" If any one saith, that no satisfaction is made to 
*' God for sins, as to their temporal punishment, 
44 through the merits of Christ, by punishments 

inflicted by Him [God] and patiently endured, 
44 or enjoined by the Priest (not spontaneously 
44 undertaken), such as fasting, prayer, almsgiving, 
" or other works of piety ; and therefore that the 
44 best penitence is only a new life ; Let him be 
44 Anathema. 

44 If any one saith, that the keys of the Church 
44 are only given to loose and not to bind also, and 
" therefore that Priests, in imposing punishments 
44 on those who confess, act contrary to the end of 
44 the keys and the ordinance of Christ, and that it 
44 is a fiction that in virtue of the keys, temporal 
44 punishment remains, for the most part, to be 

Tournely, De Pcexiit. t. ii p. 3; Bouvier, De Poenit. p. 128, &c. 
280; Trevern, Discussion Amicale, t. ii. p, 205; Milner, End 
of Controversy, Letter xlii ; Hornyhold, Real Principles of 
Catholics (on Penance) ; Faith of Catholics by Berrington and 
Kirk, p. 339. Walenburch. Opera, t. ii. p. 19; &c. 



LETTER II. 



11 



" discharged, after eternal punishment has been 
" removed ; Let him be Anathema d ." 

It might naturally be objected to this doctrine, 
that the Sacrament of Baptism also remits sin, and 
yet there is no reserve of temporal punishment in 
this case ; so that it seems unreasonable to suppose 
that when sins are remitted by the sacrament of 
Penitence, their temporal penalties are made an 
exception to the general amnesty. But the 
Council of Trent has its answer to this objection 
in the following terms. 

" The nature of Divine justice seems to require, 
" that they who have sinned ignorantly before 
" baptism, should be received into favour in a 
" different mode from those, who having been 
" once delivered from the service of sin and of the 
" Devil, and having received the gift of the Holy 
" Ghost, have not feared knowingly to violate the 
" temple of God, and to grieve the Holy Ghost. 
41 And it befits the Divine clemency, not to pardon 
" our sins without any satisfaction, lest we should 
'* take occasion to suppose our sins light, and 
" committing injury and insult against the Holy 
" Ghost, should fall into more grievous sins, laying 
" up for ourselves wrath in the day of wrath 6 ." 

I trust. Sir, you will admit that I have endea- 
voured to give the fullest and most authentic 
exposition of the doctrine of your Church in 

(1 Concil. Trident. Sessio xiv. 
c Sessio xiv. cap. viii. 



12 



LETTER II. 



reference to temporal penalties and satisfactions. 
Your own statements on the subject are, as I can 
attest, entirely in accordance with those of all your 
theologians, and they exactly harmonize with the 
doctrines of the Council of Trent. There can 
therefore be no mistake as to what the belief of 
Romanists really is on these points. 

Now, Sir, I have already said, that a large body 
of your doctrines and practices to which we object, 
depends on the doctrine of temporal punishment, 
and the necessity of satisfying for it by penitential 
works. This is stated correctly by one of your 
titular bishops, Dr. Hornyhold, as follows. 

" The eternal pain is forgiven [in the Sacrament 
<( of Penance], but the temporal pain commonly 
" remains, as it appears both from the necessity of 
tc the thing, the instance of David, w r ho was pu- 
" nished by the death of his children after his sins 
" were forgiven, 2 Kings xii. ; and other instances 
<£ of temporal calamities inflicted for offences 
" though pardoned. And this method of temporal 

"pain IS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR FAITH OS to 

" sacramental Satisfaction, Indulgences, Purgatory, 
" and Prayer for the dead { ." 

It does not appear evident at first view, how 
your doctrine of Satisfaction, Purgatory, Indulg- 
ences, Masses, and Suffrages or Prayers for the 
dead, are connected together ; and how vitally they 

f Hornyhold, Real Principles of Catholics, p. 277, 278. 
Ed. London, 1749- 



LETTER II. 



13 



all depend on the doctrine of temporal penalties 
above mentioned. Bear with me then, while I 
trace the mutual connexion and dependence of 
these doctrines and practices. 

Your Church lays it down as a broad and general 
principle, that temporal punishment is still due to 
the Divine justice for sins, after their eternal punish- 
ment has been remitted in the Sacrament of Penance, 
This is the first step. 

Secondly, you maintain, that such temporal 
punishment may be averted by Satisfactions or 
works of penance, such as fasting, alms, and 
prayers, which, according to you, satisfy, expiate, 
or atone for the temporal punishments due to 
Divine justice. 

Thirdly, you argue, that as temporal penalties are 
absolutely due to Divine justice ; if they are not 
redeemed or expiated in this life by works of 
penance, they must be endured in the next life, 
and this is your doctrine of Purgatory, 

Fourthly, you believe, that the Church has the 
power of remitting such temporal punishments in 
this life or in Purgatory by Indulgences, in which 
the merits of Christ and (as many of you hold) of 
the Saints, are applied to the supply of your defi- 
ciency in works of Satisfaction. 

Fifthly, you conceive, that as there may be 
doubts whether the conditions on which Indul- 
gences are given are really fulfilled, and as there 
may be other reasons for questioning whether a real 



14 



LETTER II. 



remission of temporal punishment has been ob- 
tained by Indulgences in any particular case, it is 
necessary to continue works of Satisfaction, as if 
Indulgences had not been granted, and to obtain 
the Suffrages or Prayers of the Church, especially 
the sacrifice of the Mass, which you believe to have 
great efficacy in remitting the temporal punish- 
ments of the living and dead. 

Sixthly, you believe, that one person may perform 
satisfactory works for another, and thus obtain the 
remission or diminution of his temporal punish- 
ment in this life or in Purgatory, and that he may 
also acquire the remissions of temporal punish- 
ment conveyed by Indulgences, and apply them to 
the relief of the dead in the tortures of Purgatory, 
or even to their delivery from those dreaded 
regions. 

From this, Sir, it is evident, that your doctrine 
of Temporal punishment is the very life-blood, the 
vital sap, the foundation, the key-stone of your 
system on all these points. Take this doctrine 
away, and the whole machinery of your Church is 
broken asunder. Your Purgatory, your Satisfac- 
tions, your Indulgences, your Masses for the dead, 
Confraternities, privileged altars, scapularies, and 
beads, medals, and crucifixes, with the whole para- 
phernalia of indulgenced rites, objects, and prayers, 
are scattered to the winds. This, Sir, is the root 
from which springs a huge and fearful mass of 
superstition, choking and obscuring the pure faith 



LETTER II. 



15 



which still lingers among you j and in assailing 
this error and its branches, which like serpents have 
clung round your Catholic faith, and by their 
poisonous breath have been destroying its chil- 
dren, I have no other object than to restore the 
ancient Roman faith — the faith of the holy Catholic 
Church — that faith which has always existed, and 
which, by virtue of the Saviour's promise, shall 
prevail over " the gates of Hell," over all the 
machinations of the Powers of Darkness. 

Let us come then to the examination of the 
basis on which this doctrine rests. Let us enquire 
what reasons you can furnish for believing, that by 
a general law of God, temporal penalties remain 
due to Divine justice after sin has been remitted, 
and that such penalties can be averted. 

1. You appeal in the first place to what 
passes within our minds ; I quote from your own 
writings. 

" Is it God's ordinance, that when he has for- 
" given sins, and so justified the sinner as to place 
" him once more in a state of grace, he still 
" reserves the infliction of some degree of punish- 
" ment for his transgressions? We say, that un- 
" doubtedly it is ; and I would appeal, in the first 
" instance, to the feelings of any individual ; and 
" I do not believe there is any one, however he 
■ ' may think himself in a state of favour before 
" God — however he may flatter himself that his 



16 



LETTER II. 



" sins are taken away — who will not answer the 
" appeal. Why is it that, when calamity falls upon 
l ' him, he receives it as a punishment for his sins? 
" Why do our natural feelings prompt us to 
" consider our domestic and personal afflictions as 
11 sent hy God for our transgressions, although, 
" at the moment when affliction comes, we may 
4< not be conscious of lying under actual guilt ? 
" This is a feeling which pervades every form of 
' ' religion, and more naturally that of Christ; 
" because it is impossible to be familiar with the 
" word of God, without receiving an impression 
" that he does visit the sins of men on their heads, 
" although they may have endeavoured, with rea- 
" sonable hope, to obtain their forgiveness. ... It 
" is impossible not, more or less, to connect the 
" idea of suffering inflicted, with that of sin com- 
" mitteds." 

You will excuse me, Sir, if I cannot admit the 
propriety of making any appeal, in the first instance, 
to our natural feelings, where a grand principle 
of religion is in question. If our natural feelings 
be in accordance with the doctrines revealed by 
God, and conveyed to us by the united voice of 
Scripture and Catholic Tradition, we may indeed 
use them as an additional argument in favour of the 
Truth ; but if they are adopted as our guides and 
directors in the interpretation of the word of God ; 

p Lectures on the Doctrines, &c. of the Catholic Church, 
vol. ii. p. 42. 



LETTER II. 



17 



if they are put forward in the first instance to bias 
our minds, you must permit me to say, that, con- 
sidering our natural inclination to evil, and the 
temptations of the Devil by which we are per- 
petually assailed, such a method seems eminently 
calculated to involve us in all sorts of errors and 
heresies. 

I must therefore protest against your appealing 
in the first instance to our " natural feelings," 
when the real question is whether a certain prin- 
ciple has been revealed by God. 

But, Sir, I am ready and willing to meet you on 
the ground you have selected. I fully admit that 
our natural feelings prompt us to connect in some 
cases the notion of temporal calamities suffered, 
with that of sin committed and unrepented of. 
We need not look to Scripture and contemplate 
the case of a world destroyed by the flood for its 
sins, of Sodom perishing in fire and brimstone, and 
of the Jews scattered amidst all nations for their 
rejection of the Saviour ; for we may see with our 
own eyes, that Divine Providence does sometimes 
make bare its arm, and visibly punish wicked 
individuals and nations. But, Sir, if we do see 
this, we also frequently see Vice and Sin trium- 
phant in this world, and we see Virtue and 
Religion pining in misery and affliction, persecuted, 
overwhelmed with insults and torments, and lifting 
their eyes in meek resignation and inward joy to the 
sublime rewards which are promised to those that 

B 



18 



LETTER II. 



suffer for Christ. Need I call to your remembrance 
the Saints of old, of whom the blessed Apostle Paul 
writes thus : " They were tortured, not accepting 
" deliverance; that they might obtain a better resur- 
" rection; and others had trial of cruel mockings and 
" scourgings, yea, moreover of bonds and imprison- 
et ment : they were stoned, they were sawn asunder, 
"were tempted, were slain with the sword: they 
" wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being 
" destitute, afflicted, tormented ; of whom the world 
" was not xuorthy : they wandered in deserts, and in 
" mountains, and in dens, and caves of the earth/' 
Heb. xi. 35 — 38. No one can venture to say 
that these temporal afflictions were endured by the 
Saints for their sins ; they were trials of their 
faith, patience, love of God. Listen again to the 
words of our Lord Himself; " Blessed are ye when 
11 men shall revile you and persecute you, and 
" shall say all manner of evil against you falsely 
" for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad : 
" for great is your reward in heaven : for so per- 
" secuted they the prophets which were before 
" you." And again, " These things have I spoken 
" unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In 
Si the world ye shall have tribulation ; but be of good 
" cheer, I have overcome the world." Hear the 
words of St. Paul : " My son, despise not thou the 
" chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art 
" rebuked of Him : for whom the Lord loveth He 
(i chasteneth, and scour geth every son whom he re- 



LETTER II. 



19 



" ceiveth." Attend also to the language of St. Peter, 
the first of the Apostles, i( Now for a season, 
" if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold 
" temptations : that the trial of your faith, being 
" much more precious than of gold that perisheth 

though it be tried with fire, might be found unto 
" praise, and honour, and glory, at the appearing of 
" Jesus Christ." 1 Pet. i. 6, 7. 

It is evident then, that temporal calamities are 
in many cases, nay as a general rule, inflicted on 
the true disciples of Christ, in order to try and 
strengthen their faith, and to procure for them 
a greater degree of glory, honour, and praise in 
the eternal and heavenly kingdom of Christ. And, 
Sir, this might have been anticipated from the life 
of Him whom we in common adore, and whom we 
regard as the grand example to whom our lives 
ought to be conformed. No Being that ever par- 
took of human nature was so severely afflicted with 
temporal as well as spiritual sorrows and calamities 
as He who redeemed the world ; and yet, none but 
Himself was ever free from the taint of all sin, 
original as well as actual. This one example is 
an irrefragable proof, that temporal calamities and 
torments are not necessarily, in any way, the results 
of sin committed by him who suffers them. 

You cannot deny the truth of this principle 
without heresy. You do not expressly deny it 
in your argument. But I have brought it thus 
distinctly forward, because it seems to me that 

b 2 



20 



LETTER II. 



Romanists generally, in their consideration of the 
afflictions of good men, seem inclined to forget 
the reasons assigned for them by the word of God, 
and to suppose that they are all intended as punish- 
ments of sin. Nothing can be more injurious to 
God than such a notion. It represents Him in the 
attitude of a severe Judge instead of a loving 
Parent — a Parent who educates his children for 
higher glory by a more rigid discipline. In op- 
position to such errors, I lay down the following 
proposition as an Article of Catholic faith deduced 
directly from the word of God : " That temporal 
44 afflictions and calamities are commonly 
44 imposed by God's mercy on the justified, in 
44 order that they may obtain a greater and 
" more glorious reward." 

Now, Sir, I come to your arguments from our 
"feelings." You imagine, 44 that when calamity 
"falls upon" any one who thinks himself in a state 
of favour before God, 44 he receives it as a punish- 
44 ment for his sins." — You assert, that 44 our natural 
44 feelings prompt us to consider our domestic and 
44 personal afflictions, as sent by God for our trans- 
44 gressions"—that 44 it is impossible not, more or 
44 less, to connect the idea of suffering inflicted, with 
44 that of sin committed. 3 ' I have no doubt, Sir, 
that yourself and other Romanists are in the habit 
of regarding such temporal afflictions of the justi- 
fied as punishments for their past sins ; but I must 
say, that any one who enters into the spirit of the 



LETTER II. 



21 



word of God ; any one who can appreciate the 
glorious and merciful objects of a Heavenly Father 
in those afflictions, will view them in a widely dif- 
ferent light. The carnal and ignorant may see in 
them nothing but exactions of Divine justice, pe- 
nalties for sin partially forgiven. But the spiritual 
mind will trace in them the discipline of Love, not 
inflicting penalties for the past, but preparing the 
way for a more glorious futurity. 

Such afflictions therefore are to be regarded as 
signs of love, not of vengeance. They are to be 
desired more than dreaded. They are to be en- 
dured, not expiated. If they are not endured, the 
Christian suffers loss. If they are removed, his 
reward is less. If you fast, and pray, and with 
many tears beseech God to remove from you these 
temporal calamities, you may indeed prevail, though 
one might almost doubt whether any prayer like 
this, proceeding from a heart unable to appreciate 
the Divine mercy, would be heard. The case of 
the inhabitants of Gadara however shews, that 
God will hear the prayers of those who intreat Him 
to " depart out of their coasts and it may be 
apprehended that He will also hear the prayers of 
those who ignorantly pray that his grace of afflic- 
tive dispensations may be removed from them — of 
those who regard his graces as calamities, his 
works of love as punishments. 

You spend your lives in endeavouring to avert 
these temporal afflictions, which you regard as so 



22 



LETTER II. 



many exactions of Gcd's justice. It is very true 
that you regard them as punishments for sin, and 
that they therefore appear to you in a most for- 
midable light. But still you really are endeavour- 
ing to avert what is not a punishment for sin, 
but a mark of God's favour. The temporal afflic- 
tions of the righteous are seen by you in a false 
light. You think them judgments, while they are 
really mercies. 

But you will answer, when thus pressed, that you 
do admit that temporal evils are frequently in- 
tended for spiritual blessings, though you hold that 
they are also often intended as punishments of sin 
remitted ; and that it is not your design to avert 
them in the former sense, but in the latter. 

I would enquire then, first, (admitting your doc- 
trine for the sake of argument,) what means you 
have of determining that such temporal evils may 
not be, at once, punishments for sins past, and 
means of future improvement and reward ? If they 
be so, you inflict an injury on yourselves by seeking 
to avert them, and yet you cannot deny that the 
case is possible. 

Secondly, I ask, whether such temporal evils, if 
they are (as you imagine) inflicted for the punish- 
ment of sin remitted as regards its greater penalties, 
may not be necessary to preserve ourselves from fall- 
ing again into sin, or necessary for the instruction of 
others? And here again is a reason why we should 
not earnestly labour to avert such temporal evils ; 



LETTER II. 



23 



because in so doing we may be only interfering with 
our own salvation or that of the brethren, and 
counteracting the designs of God. 

So much for your appeal to our " feelings," and 
to the supposed connection between temporal suf- 
fering and sm. If you persist in asserting that 
temporal afflictions have a necessary connection 
with sin, you accuse our Saviour himself of sin, 
and fall into damnable heresy. 

II. I now turn to the proofs which you adduce 
from Scripture in support of your doctrine. And 
here let me be permitted to state the question more 
clearly. 

It is not in question then 5 w T hether temporal 
penalties are, in the order of God's providence, 
(especially under the former dispensations,) due to, 
and inflicted on, sin; but whether they are, under 
the Gospel, due to sin remitted and pardoned. 

Hence you will at once admit, that it w r ould be 
the merest sophistry and folly to attempt to prove 
your doctrine from the simple fact, that temporal 
penalties for sin have been inflicted on sinners 
under the old or new dispensations, while the ques- 
tion is whether they have been inflicted on pardoned 
sinners. 

In considering the testimonies which have been 
advanced in support of your view, I must here 
turn from your scanty collection of scriptural ex- 
amples, to the fuller and more systematic argu- 
ment of Tournely. He collects " those places of 



24 



LETTER II. 



" Scripture which signify that God, after the pardon 
" of sin, still requires an avenging temporal punish- 
" ment (ultricem pcenam temporalem) from the 
" penitent." 

" The example of David (2 Kings [Samuel] xii,) 
44 is especially remarkable. For although Nathan 
44 had heard from the prophet (verse 13,) ' The 
" Lord also hath put away thy sin ; thou shalt 
" not die,' he immediately adds, 4 Howbeit, because 
" by this deed thou hast given great occasion to 
" the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child 
" also that is born unto thee shall surely die;' 
44 and verse 10, ' Now therefore the sword shall 
" never depart from thine house ; because thou 
" hast despised me, and hast taken the wife of 
" Uriah the Hittite to be thy wife." God remits 
" on one, side the guilt and eternal punishment; 
" but on the other he requires temporal punishment 
" as well from the son as the father himself, 
" not merely for the discipline and amendment of 
" David, and the example of others, as the Inno- 
" vators and especially Daille commonly reply, but 
" also for the punishment and chastisement of par- 
V doned sin. ' Because by this deed thou hast 
" given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to 

44 blaspheme Because thou hast despised me,' 

44 saith the holy context, which particle 4 Because' 
44 denotes that the sin of David was the real cause 
" of all the evils which he suffered, and not merely 
44 their occasion, as Daille cavils ; for with what 



LETTER II. 



25 



" more significant terms could Scripture have ex- 
" pressed the cause?" (Tournely, De Pcenit. t. ii. 
p. 4.) 

You will admit, Sir, that this is as clear and 
cogent an argument as can well be deduced from 
this passage in favour of your view. Let us now 
consider it more closely. It is obvious, therefore, 
that God by Nathan remitted the extreme punish- 
ment which was due to David's sin, " Thou shalt 
" not die," and that at the same time He imposed 
a lesser temporal punishment for his sin, " The 
" child that is born unto thee shall surely die." 
But, Sir, I must deny that this example furnishes 
any necessary proof that a similar mode of proceed- 
ing characterizes the present dealings of God with 
us. A temporal penalty of some sort was necessary 
when God visibly interfered in the affairs of men. 
But now that his guidance is entirely spiritual 
and invisible, temporal penalties are no longer 
necessary in the same way ; and had David lived 
under the Christian dispensation, his crime might 
not have involved such consequences when truly 
repented of. Under the former dispensation the 
case was widely different. Had the favoured servant 
of God, the chosen pastor of God's people, been 
permitted to commit most grievous and scandalous 
sins, without any visible signs of God's indignation, 
the most fatal results must have followed. The 
justice of God would have been impugned. Sin 
would have been encouraged. 



26 



LETTER II. 



From all this it is plain, that no inference can 
be deduced from the above passage in proof of your 
tenets. But, Sir, there is a doctrine clearly taught 
by this example, and by the subsequent conduct of 
David, which is fatal to your view. We learn from 
it, that such temporal penalties inflicted for sin can- 
not be averted. Was the threatened punishment of 
David averted by his prayers, fastings, tears, pro- 
strations, and other works of "satisfaction?" No ! 
The child died. How vain therefore is it for you to 
imagine that such temporal penalties of sin can be 
averted ! Observe too, that when temporal punish- 
ments were afterwards sent to David in the case of 
Absalom, and of the numbering of the people, he 
did not attempt to avert them by any works of satis- 
faction. He submitted to the Divine will, and his 
example is meant to teach us the duty of submis- 
sion to all similar dispensations of God. 

Tournely continues thus : 

" In the same II Book of Kings [Samuel] c. xxiv, 
" although God had pardoned David's sin, which 
" he had committed in numbering the people, yet 
6i in verse 12, a remaining punishment is set forth 
" to be discharged, and he is given the option 
" of war, famine, or the plague." (Tournely, ibid.) 

On this argument I must observe, first, that 
there is no evidence whatever that God had par- 
doned David's sin. It is true indeed that David 
Ci said unto the Lord. I have sinned greatly in that 
6 ' I have done ; and now, I beseech thee, O Lord, 



LETTER II. 



27 



" take away the iniquity of thy servant : for I have 
" done very foolishly." But all we know of the 
result is, that God offered him the choice of three 
grievous penalties. There is not any allusion to 
God's having pardoned his sin when the penalty 
was inflicted. Consequently this passage does not 
relate to the question before us. If it did, however, 
if David's sin had been pardoned when the Prophet 
offered him the choice of war, pestilence, or famine, 
the conclusion would be fatal to your doctrine. The 
punishment was inflicted, and David instructed by 
the case of Uriah, that such punishments could not 
be averted by any works of satisfaction or penance, 
submitted himself to the Divine will. 

Tournely continues : " In the 32d chapter of 
" Exodus, when Moses interceded with God not to 
" destroy the whole people on account of their 
64 crime in adoring the golden calf, God is said to 
" have been appeased verse 14, yet in verse 34 
" God saith, ' Nevertheless, in the day when I visit 
M I will visit their sin upon them,' " (Ibid.) 

In this case God evidently did not forgive the sin 
of the children of Israel, He only commuted the 
sentence of utter destruction which He had pro- 
nounced against that people for their idolatry, into 
chastisements of a different character, at the prayer 
and intercession of Moses. There is no evidence 
that the people repented and were forgiven their 
sin. On the contrary, the Lord said unto Moses, 
in reply to his entreaties for their forgiveness. 



28 



LETTER II. 



44 Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I 
" blot out of my book." (verse 33.) And in sign of 
his wrath we find, that " the Lord plagued the 
44 people, because they made the calf, which Aaron 
" made." (verse 35.) What advantage then can 
you derive from this passage? It is adduced to 
prove that sins pardoned are subject to temporal 
punishment. But the sin of the children of Israel 
here mentioned was not pardoned. 

I return to Tournely. " In the 14th chapter of 
44 Numbers, the Lord was angry at the murmuring 
" of the people, and was so appeased by the prayer 
" of Moses as to say, (ver. 20.) 1 I have pardoned 
41 according to thy word ;' yet adds, (ver. 22.) ' All 
" those men which have seen my glory and my 
44 miracles which I did .... shall not see the 
' 4 land." (Ibid.) 

In this case it is obvious, that the 44 pardon" 
granted by God did not imply the forgiveness of 
the sin committed, and the justification of those 
who had committed it, for He speaks of the con- 
gregation as those that " have tempted me now 
44 these ten times, and have not hearkened to my 
44 voice," (ver. 22.) ; £< them that provoked me/' 
(ver. 23.); " this evil congregation which murmur 
44 against me," (ver. 27.) He says, " Your little 
44 ones .... shall know the land which ye have 
44 despised" (ver. 31.) " Each day for a year shall 
44 ye bear your iniquities" (ver. 34.) 44 I the Lord 
44 have said, I will surely do it unto all this evil 



LETTER II. 



29 



" congregation that are gathered together against 
" me" l^ver. 35.) Such is the language of God to 
the congregation of Israel after he had " pardoned" 
them, (ver. 20.) And it is plain therefore that 
this pardon was not a remission of their sin, but a 
remission of the immediate destruction by pestilence, 
and the disinheritance which God had threatened, 
(ver. 12.) The temporal punishments then with 
which they were visited, were not punishments of 
sin remitted — punishments of the justified. They 
were chastisements of unbelieving and impenitent 
sinners. Is this the interpretation of unaided 
human reason ? Is it not the interpretation of 
St. Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where 
speaking of those that fell in the wilderness in 
consequence of this Divine decree, he says, " To 
" whom sware he that they should not enter 
"into his rest, but to them that believed not? 
" So we see that they could not enter in because 
" of their unbelief," (Hebr. iii. 18, 19.) And is 
it this unbelieving, this impenitent, this evil congre- 
gation, that you would hold up as a proof that 
temporal penalties are inflicted on the believing and 
justified penitent ? 

I return to your proofs. " Add to these those 
" places of Scripture in which just and holy men 
" declare that they are punished and afflicted in 
" this life for their sins, — doubtless past and already 
" pardoned by God. Thus Tobias, c. iii. v. 4. 
" said, ' Because we have not obeyed thy com- 



30 



LETTER II. 



" mandments, therefore we have been delivered 
" for a spoil, and unto captivity, and unto death, 
" and for a proverb of reproach to all the nations 
" among which we are dispersed. Deal not with 
" me according to my sins and my father's,, &c.' " 
(Tournely, ibid.) 

There is no evidence whatever that Tobias, in 
offering this prayer, believed that his sins had 
been pardoned. On the contrary, his prayer infers 
throughout, that he believed himself still subject to 
God's displeasure for sin, and to the punishment 
which resulted from it. He prays God " not to 
" punish him for his sins and ignorances/' (ver. 3.) 
evidently supposing that he was still liable to the 
full measure of penalty due to them. This passage 
therefore cannot afford any support to your 
doctrine of a portion of the punishment due to 
sin remaining after the greater part of its penalties 
have been remitted, and after the sin has been 
remitted, and the sinner justified by the sacrament 
of Penance. 

" In the third chapter of Daniel, v. 28. the 
" three children placed in the furnace say, 1 In 
" truth and in judgment thou hast brought on 
" us all these things, because of our sins, 7 " fyc. 
(Tournely, ibid.) 

I might object to this passage at once, as an 
interpolation, and as forming no part of the word 
of God, because it is not found in the Hebrew 
original of the Book of Daniel. But it is needless 



LETTER II. 



31 



for my purpose to do so ; because it is evident from 
these words and from the whole context, that the 
three children believed that their sins had not been 
remitted, and consequently the case has nothing to 
do with your doctrine. 

" The wise man pronounces generally (Proverbs 
" iii. 12.) that ' whom the Lord loveth he cor- 
41 recteth ; even as a father the son in whom he 
" delighteth.' The same is said, Hebr. xii. 6. and 
" Rev. iii. 19." (Tournely, ibid.) 

Certainly, the Lord does intend temporal afflic- 
tions as marks of love to the justified, This is 
exactly what we contend for. We view them as a 
discipline of love, intended to promote the glory 
and happiness of believers. You regard them as 
modes of Divine vengeance for sin already pardoned. 
Which of these two doctrines is the most consistent 
with the passages just quoted? Which is most 
calculated to sweeten the afflictions of the world '? 
Which is most conducive to the glory of God ? 
Which is most calculated to cause love of God and 
dependence on Him ? I am content to leave this 
to the conscience of my readers, and of yourself. 

But I must now endeavour to collect your re- 
maining arguments from Scripture, for the purpose 
of seeing the utmost extent of what can be said in 
maintenance of your principle. I turn then to 
Bellarmine, and glean from his pages what follows. 

He argues, " that death itself is often inflicted as 
" the penalty of sin, even after its guilt has been 



32 



LETTER II. 



" remitted, " from Genesis ii. 6 In the day that 
' thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die ; and 
Rom. v. ' By one man sin entered into the world, 
' and death by sin, and so death passed upon all 
1 men, in whom all have sinned.' Death then is 
the punishment of original sin, and yet the guilt 
and eternal penalty of original sin is remitted by 
baptism. Thus all men suffer temporal penalties 
for sin remitted a . 

In reply to this we may most fully admit, that 
death is the penalty of original sin; but we deny 
that any argument can be drawn from this to prove 
that temporal penalties are inflicted on actual sins 
after they have been pardoned. For if all men 
suffer death for original sin, it is for the sin of 
Adam imputed to them, and not for any sin com- 
mitted by themselves. So that sins which we our- 
selves commit, may be free from any temporal 
penalties after their remission. All then that can 
be collected from the fact alleged by Bellarmine is, 
that God might, if he pleased, inflict temporal 
penalties on our actual sins after they were re- 
mitted. This we fully concede in the abstract, 
though we do not conceive it consistent with the 
actual scheme of redemption. But the question is, 
whether He has really made such a regulation, and 
there is no proof here that He has done so. 

Another argument is deduced from the penalty 
awarded to Moses and Aaron for their sin at the 

a Bellarmin. De Poenitentia, lib. iv. c. ii. 



LETTER II. 



33 



water of Meribah, when God declared to them 
that they should not enter the promised land, 
(Numbers xx. 12.) And accordingly Aaron died in 
Mount Hor, (ver. 28.) and Moses in Mount Nebo, 
(Deut. xxxiv. 5.) Yet no one will deny that 
Moses and Aaron were restored to the favour of 
God after their sin at Meribah s. 

To this it may be replied, that as Moses and 
Aaron had not believed God " to sanctify him in 
" the eyes of the children of Israel," (Numb. xx. 
12.) and had thus publicly offended against God, it 
was essentially necessary that some mark of Divine 
displeasure against their sin should be inflicted ; 
because God at that time ruled his people by a 
system of temporal rewards and punishments, and 
guided them in a direct and visible manner. But 
under the Christian dispensation He no longer does 
so, and therefore sins equal to that of Moses need 
not necessarily be visited by temporal penalties. 
The justice and sanctity of his government no 
longer demand any such dispensations. The con- 
duct of Moses and Aaron however concur to prove 
what is fatal to your view, for they did not seek to 
avert the threatened penalty in any way, and the 
penalty itself was strictly and literally exacted. 

The only other argument which seems worthy of 
notice is from 1 Kings xiii. — the case of the 
Prophet who was slain by a lion on account of his 
sins; and yet, as Bellarmine argues, £J it cannot 
g Bellarmine, ibid. 
C 



34 



LETTER II. 



" be doubtful that he requested and obtained 
" pardon from the Lord ; for in proof of the 
<£ sanctity in which he had died, the lion stood near 
" the body without eating it, and did not dare even 
" to touch the Prophet's ass k ." 

This is just as good a proof of the sanctity 
of the ass as of the prophet. The lion touched 
neither : therefore the one and the other died in 
sanctity ! What folly is this ! The plain reason of 
the miracle was to shew that this penalty was dis- 
tinctly the work of God — to furnish an undeniable 
proof of his punishment of disobedience. 

These, Sir, are your proofs from Scripture. 
They are the proofs adduced by the Catechism 
of the Council of Trent, by Bellarmine, Tournely, 
Delahogue, Bouvier, Milner, Hornyhold, yourself, 
and all your writers. And now what can they 
avail you ? The passages which all your most 
eminent theologians have brought from Scripture 
either subvert your doctrine, or utterly fail to prove 
its truth. They either speak of the temporal 
penalties of sin not pardoned, or they relate to 

k Ibid. Bouvier, Bishop of Maus, adds one other argument, 
from the circumstance of Adam's suffering death for his sin, 
though that sin had doubtless been pardoned, (De Pcenit. p. 
128.) But it must be remembered, that in this case God was 
bound by his own positive promise, " In the day that thou 
" eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." God is not bound by any 
similar promise under the Gospel to inflict temporary penalties 
or death for our sins. Consequently the punishment of Adam 
proves nothing. 



LETTER II. 



35 



circumstances when temporal and visible penalties 
were necessary in the Divine economy ; or they shew 
that temporal afflictions are not penalties of sin. 
Produce if you can any other and better proofs 
from Scripture, and I shall be ready to discuss 
them ; but do not weary us by the repetition of 
refuted arguments. 

III. I would here gladly enter on the discussion of 
certain passages from the Fathers which have been 
adduced in favour of your doctrine, and demonstrate 
from them the falsity of that very doctrine ; but 
space fails me at present ; and this discussion is 
not, strictly speaking, necessary ; because if you 
are manifestly devoid of any scriptural proofs for 
your doctrine, it cannot, according to the doctrine 
laid down by Veron l , Bossuet, and many of your 
most eminent theologians, (in accordance with the 
whole body of the Fathers u \) be any article of faith; 
and consequently your doctrines of Satisfactions, 
Purgatory, and Indulgences, built upon it, cannot 
be articles of faith ; and the Council of Trent 

1 Veron, in his liegula Fidei, cap. i. sect. 2. says, that " two 
things must be united in order that any doctrine should be an 
article of the Catholic faith : one, that it be revealed of God by 
the prophets, apostles, or canonical authors; the other, that it 
be proposed by the Church. " 

m See Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. p. 10 — 17. Newman 
on Romanism, Lect. xiii. Usher's Answer to a Jesuit, c. ii. 
Taylor's Dissuasive, p. ii. b. i. s. ii. And the Norrisian prize 
Essay for this year, by the Rev. D. A. Beaufort, M.A. (Parker t 
London.) 



36 



LETTER II. 



must have erred in declaring them articles of 
faith. 



But, Sir, I have not yet concluded my task, 
which would be incomplete if it were limited 
merely to a refutation of your arguments in 
defence of the doctrine of temporal penalties. 
There are specific objections to that doctrine, which 
must now be offered to your notice. 

Your belief then is, that Divine justice exacts 
the debt of temporal punishment for sin, after its 
eternal punishment has been remitted. You do 
not imagine that the mercy or love of God demands 
these penalties. No : — it is (as all your writers 
say) the justice of God which is to be satisfied by 
temporal penalties. 

Let me establish this by some citations from 
your own writings. You say, " It is only with 
" regard to the reserved degree of temporal pu- 
" nishment that we believe the Christian can 
ft satisfy the justice of God".". . . " This scheme 
" of God's justice was not a part of the imperfect 
<c law, but the unvarying ordinance of his dispens- 
" ation anterior to the Mosaic ritual, and amply 
" confirmed by Christ in the Gospel.". . . " It con- 
<4 sequently becomes a part of true repentance 
" to try to satisfy this Divine justice by the volun- 
" tary assumption of such penitential works.". . . 

n Lectures on the principal doctrines, &c. of the Catholic 
Church, vol. ii. p. 42. 



LETTER II. 



37 



6 ' These propositions contain the Catholic doctrine 
" concerning Satisfaction °." I need scarcely say, 
that the language of all writers of your Communion 
is exactly similar ; and it is obviously necessary 
that it should be so, for if temporal punishments 
are due for remitted sin, they can only be due to 
Divine justice. 

Now if Divine justice still remains to be satisfied 
after the remission of sin, it must require what is in 
justice due to sin, that is, eternal punishment, and 
consequently the remission of sin is, according to 
your doctrine, a mere name. So that your doc- 
trine is absolutely subversive of its own foundation, 
and of the foundation of the Christian's hopes. 

And besides this, Divine justice which demands 
an infinite punishment for sin, cannot receive any 
finite or limited punishments in part-payment of 
the debt due to it. It demands an infinite punish- 
ment — a punishment not made up of parts — a 
punishment infinitely greater than all that human 
imagination could even conceive. To imagine there- 
fore that the punishment due to Divine and Infinite 
justice for sin can be divided or separated into 
eternal and temporal ; and that temporal and 
eternal punishments together satisfy the justice of 
God; is as absurd as it would be to imagine, that a 
grain of sand, together with the universe, make up 
Infinity. It is to suppose that Infinite justice can 



Ibid. p. 47. 



38 



LETTEll II. 



require what is, in comparison, less than the least 
of things, in addition to an infinite penalty. 

But Divine Justice has received an adequate 
sacrifice. The merits of our Saviour Christ, both 
God and man, were equal to the demands of Divine 
Justice, and they were accepted. Henceforth the 
justice of God was appeased ; and it has no claims 
on those to whom the infinite merits of Christ have 
been applied by true repentance. They may rest in 
confidence on the mercy of God, knowing indeed 
that many temporal calamities will befal them, 
according to the promise of Christ ; but not regard- 
ing those calamities as exactions of God's justice 
partially satisfied. They know that unrepented sin 
may again make them liable to God's judgments in 
this world and in eternity. But they firmly believe 
that an infinite atonement has been made for sins 
which demanded an infinite punishment, and as 
they believe that Divine justice has thus been fully 
and entirely satisfied, they also believe that it can 
have no further claims. Consequently the doctrine 
that temporal punishment can be due to the justice 
of God for sin remitted through Christ, is to them 
an impossibility. Did they reckon themselves still 
liable, when justified, to demands from God's 
justice, the very foundation of their hope of sal- 
vation would be shattered to pieces. 

But, Sir, dangerous and pernicious as your doc- 
trine on this point has been proved, I have not yet 
disclosed its crowning absurdity and wickedness. 



LETTER II. 



39 



It is the doctrine of the Council of Trent itself, 
that " Justification is not remission of sin merely, 
" but also sanctification, and the renewal of the 
" inner man by the voluntary reception of grace 
" and divine gifts ; so that he who was unrighteous 
" is made righteous, and the enemy becomes a 
"friend, and an heir according to the hope of 
" eternal life . . . when a man is justified, and 
" united to Jesus Christ, he receives, together with 
" the remission of sins, the following gifts bestowed 
" upon him at the same time, namely, faith, hope, 
" and charity?." 

Justification is then something more than the 
mere remission of sins— it is the restoration of the 
sinner to a state of grace, to union with his God, 
to all the glorious privileges of a " child of God." 

And yet, Sir, in the face of this most undoubted 
truth— in the face of their own belief, and the 
belief of the Roman Church — -your writers have the 
almost incredible folly and wickedness to assert, 
that the justified and beloved children of God are 
liable to the Divine wrath and vengeance ! Yes. 
It is their doctrine, that temporal punishments are 
exacted from a justified believer by the vengeance 
of God. Let me produce the following proofs. 
Your celebrated controversialists, Bishops Adrian 
and Peter de Walenburch, write thus: "Since 
" holy Scripture shews by many examples, that 
" God after remitting the guilt and eternal punish- 

p Concil. Trid. Sess. vi. cap. vii. 



40 



LETTER II. 



44 ment of sins, chastises sinners with temporal 
44 punishments, Catholics think that voluntary 
44 afflictions undertaken from the love of God and 
44 faith working by love appease the wrath of God 
4 4 (placare iram Dei )" Tournely says, " that 
" God after the pardon of sin still exacts a re~ 
" venging temporal punishment from the penitent, 
" (ultricem pamam temporalem a pmnitente adhuc 
" reposcere T .)" Your own expressions are equally 
strong. In arguing for the necessity of Satisfaction 
you say, 44 Even so, when God remits a weight of 
44 eternal punishment, it seems but fair that the out- 
44 rage done to his divine Majesty should be repaired 
" by outward acts, expressive of sorrow, and directed 
44 to appease his wrath, and avert those scourges which 
44 he still reserves in his hand." You afterwards 
state your belief " that the sinner may, by punish- 
44 ing himself, by performing certain works propi- 
44 tiatory before God, avert his anger." (Lectures, 
ii. 48, 51.) And these, Sir, are not mere in- 
cautious expressions ; they are the natural and 
necessary result of your doctrine, that remitted 
sins are still liable to the demands of Divine 
Justice. For the Scripture teaches us, that sin 
is the object of God's wrath and vengeance, and 
if any sin be still subject to the demands of his 
justice, it is equally subject to those of his wrath 
and vengeance. So that, according to your doc- 

1 Walenburch, Opera, t. ii. p. 19. 
1 Tournely, De Poenit. t. ii. p. 3. 



LETTER II. 



41 



trine, the justified and pardoned believer is still 
liable to God's wrath ! The adopted, beloved, and 
sanctified child, is still subject to God's venge- 
ance ! God loves and hates, saves and destroys, 
at the same moment ; and the same beings are at 
once reckoned with the elect and the reprobate, with 
angels and with devils ! Can it be possible for 
absurdity, contradiction, and impiety to go beyond 
this ? And yet this is the necessary, the inevitable 
consequence to which your doctrine leads. 

Such, Sir, is your doctrine of temporal penalties 
for remitted sins — a doctrine unsupported by rea- 
son and experience, rejected by Scripture, contra- 
dictory to itself, and subversive of the Christian's 
hope of salvation. And yet it is on this doctrine 
that your whole body of doctrine concerning Satis- 
factions, Purgatory, and Indulgences vitally depend. 
Doubt that temporal penalties are by any Divine 
law now inflicted on sin repented of, and what need 
can there be for all the Satisfactions prescribed by 
you for the remission of temporal penalties ? What 
necessity is there for Purgatory to complete those 
penalties not discharged in this life ? What need 
for Indulgences to remit them ? What need for 
Suffrages and Masses for the dead, to relieve souls 
from the fiery torments of Purgatory ? These 
questions I leave for the present to your con- 
sideration, and beg to subscribe myself, 

Your obedient Servant, 

WILLIAM PALMER, 

Oxford, April 24, 1841. 



BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 



Just published, price One Shilling, 

A LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. (calling himself Bishop of 
Melipotamus,) containing REMARKS on his LETTER to Mr. 
NEWMAN. 

Preparing for publication, 

A THIRD LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. on the ROMISH 
DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION. 

* This Series of Letters will be continued. 



BAXTER, PRIN i ER, OXFORD'. 



T H I E D LETTER 



N. WISEMAN, D.D. 

ON THE ROMISH DOCTRINE OF 

SATISFACTIONS. 



BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A. 

OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD. 



OXFORD, 

JOHN HENRY PARKER ; 
J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 

184L 



BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD. 



THIRD LETTER, 



Sir, 

In my last Letter I demonstrated, that, according 
to the doctrines generally taught in the Church of 
Rome, a justified and sanctified person still remains 
subject to the wrath of God ; that a beloved child 
of God has to dread His anger and His vengeance ; 
that the same persons are at the same moment loved 
and hated by their Creator and Saviour. These con- 
clusions are intimately and indissolubly connected 
with your belief, that temporal punishments remain 
to be endured after sin has been pardoned. They 
lie at the foundation of your doctrine of Satisfaction, 
Purgatory, and Indulgences. It is my intention 
to pursue this error into all its ramifications, and 
to expose the mass of dangerous errors and super- 
stitions, and of absurd contradictions to which it 
leads, and in which it actually involves all your 
theologians. 

On the present occasion, your doctrine of Satis- 
faction shall become the subject of discussion ; and 

a 2 



4 



LETTER III, 



with this view we must in the first instance proceed 
to ascertain what your tenets really are on this 
point, and to what practices they give rise. 

1. It is your belief then, that after sin has been 
remitted as far as regards its guilt and eternal 
penalties, by the merits of Christ's sacrifice applied 
in the sacrament of Penance, a temporal penalty 
still remains due to the justice of an offended and 
angry God ; and that this wrath and anger of 
avenging justice may be appeased, and your sin 
expiated and atoned for as regards its temporal 
penalty, by Satisfactions, that is, penitential 
works, such as prayer, alms-giving, fasting, morti- 
fications, &c. 

2. You also believe, that Indulgences validly and 
effectually received, remit a portion or the whole 
of the temporal penalty due to remitted sin, and 
partially or wholly remove the necessity for satis- 
factions ; but as it is impossible, generally speaking, 
to know whether the conditions on which alone 
Indulgences are valid, have been fulfilled in any 
particular case, you therefore hold that penitents 
ought to continue in the performance of works of 
satisfaction to the end of their lives, and never 
believe themselves relieved from the necessity of 
expiating and atoning for sin, although that sin 
may have been remitted and pardoned long before 
in the sacrament of Penance. 

Such is your belief on this point, as I shall now 
shew by references to your own writings, and to 



LETTER III. 



5 



those of other eminent theologians of the Roman 
Communion. 

I. With reference then to the first point, you say, 
"1. That God, after the remission of sin, retains 
" a lesser chastisement in his power, to be inflicted 
" on the sinner. 2. That penitential works [i. e. 
" satisfactions], fasting, alms deeds, contrite weep- 
" ing, and fervent prayer, have the power of 
" averting that punishment. 3. That this scheme 
" of God's justice was not a part of the imperfect 
" law, but the unvarying ordinance of his dispensa- 
" tion, anterior to the Mosaic ritual, and amply 
" confirmed by Christ in the Gospel. 4. That it 
" consequently becomes a part of all true repent- 
" ance to try to satisfy this divine justice, by the 
" voluntary assumption of such penitential works, 
" as his revealed truth assures us have efficacy 
li before Him. These propositions contain the 
il Catholic doctrine concerning Satisfaction V 
Again: " When God remits a weight of eternal 
" punishment, it seems but fair that the outrage 
" done to his Divine Majesty should be repaired 
" by outward acts, expressive of sorrow, and 
" directed to appease his wrath, and avert those 
" scourges which He still reserves in his hand. 
" Hence in the sacrament of Penance, that third 
" part which we call satisfaction*." Your doctrine 

a Wiseman's Lectures on the Doctrines, &c. of the Catholic 
Church, vol. ii. p. 47- 
h Ibid. p. 48. 



6 



LETTER III. 



is afterwards described to be, " that sin is forgiven, 
" but punishment still inflicted ; that God will 
ef chastise in his justice, but that the sinner may, 
" by punishing himself, by performing certain 
" works propitiatory before God, avert his anger, 
" and obtain remission of this lesser chastise- 
" ment c ." 

Tournely lays down the following formal pro- 
position. 

" Penal satisfaction is necessarily to be exacted 
" of penitents, not merely to preserve them in 
c * newness of life, to heal their infirmity, and to 
" afford an example to others, as the Innovators 
" imagine; but also in order to punish and chastise 
" past sins, or to make real satisfaction, not only 
" to the Church but to God ; as well to repair the 
" injury done to Him by sin, as to redeem the 
" temporal punishment, which after the guilt and 
" eternal punishment has been forgiven, remains 
"to be discharged by us, either in this life, or 
" another*." 

Thus then it is plain, as I have said, that you 
believe satisfactory or penitential works necessary 
for the remission of the temporal penalty exacted 
by the justice of a wrathful and angry God, after 
the guilt and eternal punishment of sin have been 
remitted, and after the penitent has been placed in 
a state of grace. 

c Ibid. p. 51. 

d Tournely, De Poenit. t. ii. p. 4, 



LETTER III. 



7 



II. I now proceed to the second point — the 
necessity of continual penance, or of works of 
satisfaction during the remainder of life. 

" We can never be certain," says Bouvier bishop 
of Mans, 44 that we have obtained by many (even 
" most plenary) indulgences,, the complete remission 
" of all the temporal punishment due to our sins; 
" for a plenary indulgence often becomes partial 

[i. e. remits only a part of the temporal punish- 
" ment] either through want of a sufficient cause, 
" or through want of a work proportioned to the 
" end designed, or through defect of dispositions 
M in the agent. Hence, first, an indulgence does 
44 not exempt from the obligation of doing penance 
" [by satisfactions]; and a fortiori, a believer can- 
44 not, of his own authority, omit a sacramental 
" penance [satisfaction] enjoined to him, under 
44 pretext that he has gained or is about to gain 
" an indulgence e ." " Indulgences of a hundred 
" years or more, if there are such, may be insuf- 
" ficient to compensate the whole temporal punish- 
44 ment which a sinner is bound to pay . . . Hence, 
44 thirdly, sinners truly converted ought to endea- 
44 vour daily by good works [satisfactions] and in- 
44 dulgences, whether partial or plenary, to dimi- 
44 wish the debts which they owe to Divine justice, 
44 and to compensate for them entirely in this life, 
44 lest they be sent to the prisons of purgatory, and 
4i do not come out thence till they have paid the 

e Bouvier, De Pcenit. p. 300, 



8 LETTER III. 

" last farthing f ." Dr. Milner, one of your nominal 
bishops, says, " We do not believe an indulgence 
ic to imply any exemption from repentance . . . nor 
" from the works of penance, or other good works, 
" because our Church teaches, that ' the life of a 
" Christian ought to be a perpetual penance.' 99 
" (Concil. Trid. de Extr. Unct.) ' No one can ever 
" be sure that he has gained the entire benefit of 
" an indulgence, though he has performed all the 
££ conditions appointed for this creed/ " 

Thus 5 it appears that even Indulgences and the 
execution of the works of satisfaction enjoined by 
your priests in confession, do not render you secure 
that sin has been remitted ; and hence you recom- 
mend in addition, voluntary works of satisfaction, 
over and above those prescribed by the priest. To 
these the Council of Trent alludes in the expres- 
sions above cited by Dr. Milner ; and the Cate- 
chism of the Council speaks thus of them, u Under 
" the same name [satisfaction'] is signified also any 
" sort of punishment which we endure for our sins, 
" not imposed by the priest, but undertaken of our 

own accord, and repeated by ourselves. This 
" does not by any means belong to Penitence as a 
" sacrament V The use and necessity of such 

f Bouvier, ibid. p. SGI ; See also Tournely, De Pcenit. t. ii, 
p. 299- 

s Milner, End of Controversy, Lett. xlii. 

h Eodem verb nomine quodlibet etiam poense genus signi- 
ficatur, quam pro peccatis non quidem a sacerdote constitutanh 



LETTER III. y 

voluntary penances is thus stated in Dr. James 
Butler's Catechism sanctioned by the authorities 
of your schism in Ireland : 44 Q. Will the penance 
" enjoined in confession always satisfy for our 
" sins ? A. No ; but whatever else is wanting may 
" be supplied by Indulgences, and our own peni- 
" tential endeavours V 

And well indeed may you advise your penitents 
not to remain satisfied with the satisfactions or 
penances which are imposed on them at Confession, 
when it is remembered, that according to your 
most approved writers, the amount of penance 
assigned in the Confessional is to be measured by 
the wishes of the penitent ; that it is considered 
better to impose so slight a penance as the repe- 
tition of a single Pater Noster, or even no penance 
at all, rather than send the penitent away unab- 
solved k ; and that the penance, if inconvenient, 

sed sponte nostra susceptam, atque a nobis ipsis repetitam, 
sustinemus. Nota. Verurn haec ad poenitentiam, ut sacramentum 
est, minime pertinet. Cat. Cone. Trid. Pars ii. de poenit. c. 88. 

' " The most Rev. Dr. James Butler's Catechism, &c. ap- 
" proved and recommended by the four R. C. Archbishops of 
" Ireland as a general Catechism for the kingdom." Eleventh 
Edition, Coyne, Dublin. 

k " Rituale Parisiense dicit, ' Confessarius pcenitentem inter- 
" roget, an possit poenitentiam sibi injunctam peragere, alioquin 
" earn pro sua prudentia immutet, aut minuat.' . . . unde Gerson 
" in regida mor, p. 2. c. de pcenitentia, dicit : ' Tutius est cum 
" parva poanitentia, quse sponte suscipitur, et verosimiliter ad- 
" impletur, ducere confesses ad purgatorium, quam cum magna 
" non implenda prsecipitare in infernum.' , . . item Scolus d. 15, 



10 



LETTER III. 



may be commuted for another 1 . This system of 
course makes the imposition of Satisfaction at 
Confession a mere mockery ; although that Satis- 
faction is, all the time, loudly asserted to be a part 
of the sacrament of Penance ; so that we need not 
wonder to find you recommending penitents not to 
put their whole confidence in such sacramental 
Satisfactions. 

From all this then it is evident, that you are not 
certain that the temporal penalty due to divine 
justice for sin remitted, is removed by the per- 
formance of the satisfaction enjoined in Confession, 
or by the subsequent acquisition of Indulgences. 
No : you still urge the penitent to undertake volun- 
tary works of penance ; and as no human wisdom 

" q. 1. art. 5. loquens de pcenitente qui ammo est infirmus, ait, 
" ' Si adeo est delicatus, quod non velit jejunium adimplere, 
" imo si nullam poenitentiam vult recipere, absolvendus est, et 
" non respuendus, ne cadat in desperationem/ et sic demum 
" concludit: e Illud sibi imponendum quod libentius recipit, 
" et quod creditor impleturus.' . . . Additque idem S. archie- 
" piscopus (S. Carolus Borromceus) ' Talem imponat poeniten- 
" tiara, qualem a pcenitente praestari posse judicet. Proinde 
" aliquando, si ita expedire viderit, ilium interroget, an possit, 
" anve dubitet poenitentiam sibi injunctam peragere ; alioquin 

" earn mutabit aut minuet ' Itaque (ut inquit Host.) 

" confessor nullo modo debet permittere peccatorem desperatum 
" recedere a se, sed potius imponat ei unum Pater noster, vel 
" aliud leve, et quod alia bona quae fecerit, et mala quae tolera- 
" verit, sint ei in pcenitentia, concordante S. Thoma' &c." 
Beati A. M. de Ligorio, Theologia Moralis, t. vi. p. 19,5 — 128. 
Ed. Vesontio. 1834; see also Bouvier, de Pcenit. p. 147. 
i Ligorio, Theol. Mor. t. vi. p. 144; Bouvier, p. 158, 



LETTER III. 



11 



can determine what amount of such acts may be 
sufficient to satisfy the demands of Divine Justice, 
it follows that, according to the doctrine of the 
Council of Trent, " the life of a Christian ought 
" to be a perpetual penance." 

But, Sir, painful as such a thought must be, and 
dispiriting to Christians, your doctrine goes much 
further than this, if it be examined. For what do 
you mean, when you say that a person owes a debt 
to Divine justice, and is bound to satisfy for the 
temporal punishment due to his remitted sin ? 
You mean, that he is still subject to the wrath and 
vengeance of an offended God. What is your own 
language, when describing the object of satisfac- 
tions, or penitential works ? " When God remits a 
" weight of eternal punishment, it seems but fair, 
" that the outrage done to his Divine Majesty 
" should be repaired by outward acts, expressive 
" of sorrow, and directed to appease his wrath, and 
" avert those scourges which he still reserves in his 
" hand." (Lectures, ii. 48.) You believe, as you 
say, " that the sinner may, by punishing himself, 
" by performing certain works propitiatory before 
" God, avert his anger, and obtain a remission even 
M of this lesser chastisement." (Lectures, ii. 51.) 
Tournely, again, speaks of the temporal punishment 
due to remitted sin, as " a revenging punishment," 
(De Pcen. ii. 4.) ; and the language of all your 
writers is just the same. You all maintain, that 
Satisfactions are intended to appease the " wrath," 



12 



LETTER III. 



to mitigate the " anger, 5 ' to avert the " punish- 
" merits" and " vengeance" of an offended God. 
Such is the view which you take of God after he 
has pardoned your sins. You believe that notwith- 
standing that pardon, his wrath burns against you, 
and is so tierce, that if you are not sufficiently 
tormented in this life, you must go into Purgatory 
and suffer the torments of Hell ! Yes : you believe 
that God consigns those whom he has justified and 
sanctified, those whom he loves with a Father's 
love, those whom he has endowed with the rich 
and glorious gifts of faith, hope, and charity, those 
who are themselves full of filial love and affection 
to Him — to the torments of Hell ! " The constant 
" doctrine of the Latins" says Bouvier bishop of 
Mans, " is, that in Purgatory there is a material 
"fire like the infernal fire, and therefore that the 
" Church, in praying for the souls of the faithful, 
" asks not only for a place of light and peace, but 
" also of cooling (refrigerii) ; that is to say, against 
" the ardour of the fire m ." 

Beliarmine teaches the same doctrine in the 
following terms. " As Cardinal Cajetan rightly 
" explains, the punishment which remains to be 
" expiated after the remission of guilt is that very 

ra Constans Latinorum sententia est in purgatorio esse ignem 
material em similem igni infernally et ideo Ecclesiam pro ani- 
mabus fidelium orantem, non petere tantum locum lucis et 
pads, sed et refrigerii. videlicet contra ignis ardorera. Bouvier, 
De Pcenit. p. 285. 



LETTER III. 



13 



" same sensible punishment which the sinner ought 
" to have suffered in Hell ; its eternity only being 
" removed"." 

This, Sir, is the view which you uniformly take 
of the disposition of God towards penitent and 
pardoned sinners : you teach them still to tremble 
under the apprehension of his wrath. And when is 
this fear to be removed ? when is the sinner to 
be at peace with God ? when is he to look with 
joy and love to God as a reconciled and loving 
Father? never in this life. You tell him 
that Absolution cannot appease the anger of 
God — that sacramental satisfaction cannot do it — 
that Indulgences even are uncertain — that he must 
spend the remainder of his life in works of voluntary 
penance — and at last, that he may and probably 
will go into the torments of Hell for a time. He 
is then to spend his whole life under the appre- 
hension that he is still subject to God's wrath and 
vengeance, and still liable to the demands of his 
justice. 

And is this the peace and consolation which you 
offer to burdened consciences? Are these the 
blessings which are to flow on those who go to 
you to heal their wounds, and soothe their affiic- 

n Nam (ut recte explicat Card. Cajetan. in tract, de contritione, 
quaest. 4.) poena ilia quae luenda restat post culpa? remissionem, 
est ilia ipsa poena sensus, quam in Gehenna pati debuisset 
peccator, remota solum aeternitate. Bellarmin. De Poenitentia, 
lib. iv. c. i, 



14 



LETTER III. 



tions ? Let me contrast with this dark and melan- 
choly system, the consoling and joyful words of 
encouragement offered to penitents by Jesus Christ. 
i( Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy 
" laden, and I" will give you rest. Take my yoke 
" upon you, and learn of me ; for I am meek and 
' ' lowly in heart : and ye shall find rest unto your 
" souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is 
" light" (Matt. xi. 28—30.) Does your system 
afford rest to souls ? Is your yoke easy, and your 
burden light ? I put this question solemnly to your 
conscience, Whether a system so inconsistent with 
that of Jesus Christ can be true ? You give no 
" rest" to the souls of penitents, when you tell 
them that they are still subject to the wrath of an 
offended God. You impose on them no " easy 
yoke," no " light burden," in enjoining laborious 
works of satisfaction during life, under an uncertain 
hope that they may deliver them from the excru- 
ciating tortures of Purgatory. Can your doctrine 
then be true? Can it be the doctrine of Jesus 
Christ ? 

Let me again draw T your attention to the words 
of St. Paul in describing the state of justification. 
" Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace 
" with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ. By 
" whom also we have access by faith into this 
" grace wherein we stand, and rejoice in hope 
" of the glory of God. And not only so, but we 
" glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribu- 



LETTER III. 



15 



" lation worketh patience ; and patience, expe- 
44 rience ; and experience, hope ; and hope maketh 
" not ashamed ; because the love of God is shed 
" abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which 
44 is given unto us. For when we were yet with- 
" out strength, in due time Christ died for the 
44 ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will 
44 one die; yet peradventure for a good man some 
44 would even dare to die. But God commendeth 
il his love towards us, in that, while we were 
" yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more 
" then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be 
" saved from wrath through him. For if, when we 
44 were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the 
" death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, 
44 we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, 
" but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus 
il Christ, by whom we have now received the 
44 atonement." (Rom. v. 1 — 11.) 

Would to God that these words of the Apostle 
might sink down into the heart of every one of 
our separated brethren of the Romish persuasion ! 
It would almost seem as if the Apostle had 
written them, under the direction of the Holy 
Ghost, for the very purpose of refuting the errors 
against which I am contending. What is your 
view of the condition of the justified ? You believe 
that, after their sins are pardoned, they still re- 
main subject to the wrath and vengeance of God. 
Is this to have "peace with God?" You believe 



16 



LETTER III. 



that they are to look forward to painful afflictions 
from God's anger in this world or the next; to 
44 the scourges" of his wrath • to the tortures of his 
revenge in purgatory. Is this to 44 rejoice in hope 
4 4 of the glory of God?" You look with fear and 
terror on temporal afflictions, believing them to be 
punishments for your sins. Is this to 44 glory in 
44 tribulations also ?" You look on God as an angry 
and vindictive judge, exacting payment to the last 
farthing, either in this world or in purgatory. Is 
this to have 44 the love of God shed abroad in your 
44 hearts by the Holy Ghost?" You think that 
after you have been justified by the blood of Christ 
applied in the sacrament of Penance, you are still 
subject to 44 the wrath" of God. Is this to 
believe that 44 being now justified by Christ's blood, 
44 we shall be saved from wrath through him?" 
Let this one passage of Scripture be fully and 
calmly considered, and compared with your doc- 
trines ; and there can be no doubt of the result. 

1 would again solicit your attention to the words 
of the Apostle John. 44 There is no fear in love ; 
44 but perfect love casteth out fear; because fear 
44 hath torment. He that feareth is not made 
44 perfect in love. We love Him because He first 
44 loved us." (1 John iv. 18, 19.) The Apostle 
does not mean to forbid that godly fear of future 
transgressions, which is necessary to preserve a 
Christian from sin ; but he does most certainly 
assert, that the perfect love of God casts out all 



LETTER III. 



17 



slavish fear, all dread of God's wrath and vengeance 
for remitted sin, all uneasiness, misery, anxiety 
under a sense of the Divine anger. In this sense 
"perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath 
" torment." The man who trembles under a 
sense of God's wrath, cannot perfectly love him ; 
and thus, Sir, your doctrine renders it impossible 
for those who receive it to love their Creator 
" perfectly." 

How melancholy is it to see professing Christians 
so blind to the real character of God ! Listen to 
the Apostle John; " God is love. In this was 
" manifested the love of God toward us, because 
t{ that God sent his only-begotten Son into the 
u world, that we might live through him. Herein 
" is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved 
" us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for 
" our sins." (1 John iv. 8 — 10.) We have the 
testimony of our Lord himself to the same con- 
solatory truth: " God so loved the world, that he 
" gave his only-begotten Son." (John iii. 16.) 
" At that day ye shall ask in my name ; and I say 
" not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you ; 
" for the Father himself loveth you, because 
- - ye have loved me, and have believed that I came 
" out from God." (John xvi. 26, 27.) This most 
blessed truth is written in every page of the Gospel. 
What but the most exceeding and infinite love and 
mercy could have induced the Father to consign his 
only-begotten Son to the death of the Cross, for 

B 



18 



LETTER 111. 



those who were alienated from him, and dead in 
trespasses and sins? What but love and mercy 
could have devised such an awful sacrifice to bring 
back sinners into the way of salvation, — a salvation 
which no human merits could ever have obtained ? 
It is this love and mercy which induces the Lord 
to bear with the sins and offences of his creatures, 
and which alone leads them to repentance. 44 De- 
" spisest thou the riches of his goodness, and for- 
" bearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that 
44 the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?" 
(Rom. ii. 4.) And is it this good, this merciful, 
this loving Being, whom you regard as a God of 
wrath and vengeance towards the objects of his 
love ? What deep ingratitude is this ? what an 
injury to that eternal love, which regards the 
justified and sanctified members of Christ with an 
affection beyond all human imagination ! 

In what light does our Saviour represent God in 
his dealings with repentant sinners ? He describes 
him as a Father rejoicing to receive an ungrateful 
and prodigal son : " When he was yet a great way 
" off, his father saw him, and had compassion on him, 
44 and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him. 
44 And the son said unto him, Father, I have 
44 sinned against Heaven, and in thy sight, and am 
44 no more worthy to be called thy son. But the 
44 father said to his servants, Bring forth the best 
44 robe, and put it on him ; and put a ring on his 
* 4 hand, and shoes on his feet; and bring hither the 



LETTER III. 



19 



il fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be 
" merry: for this my son was dead, and is alive 
" again; he was lost, and is found." (Luke xv. 
20 — 24.) Can any images more forcibly express 
the love of God towards repentant sinners? Here 
is no " wrath" — no " vengeance" — no " anger" — 
but all is joy, and exultation. Here is no " reserve 
of punishment" — no partial forgiveness — no excep- 
tions out of the general amnesty — no store of bitter 
and infernal " tortures" to be rigidly exacted even 
" to the last farthing." And yet this is the point 
of view in which our Lord wishes us to regard the 
dispositions and dealings of God with real penitents. 
Do not say to me, that the contrition of the prodigal 
son was so intense^ that it remitted all temporal 
punishment ; but that his constitutes a peculiar 
case, and ought not to lead penitents generally to 
expect an equal degree of Divine love and mercy. 
For if we examine this case, there was nothing to 
take it out of the ordinary rules. The prodigal 
son was reduced to distress by his own vices ; 
" and when he came to himself," he resolved to 
arise and go to his father. We do not read of any 
signs of extreme contrition or anguish of soul. We 
read of no tears, no fastings, no sackcloth, no 
mortifications ; but he merely " arose and came to 
his father." This then is the description of every 
one who is really penitent, and the conduct of God 
here described is sufficient to shew the error and 
unsoundness of your doctrine. 



20 



LETTER III. 



I will not weary the reader by accumulating 
additional proofs from Scripture of what is so plain 
and evident • but shall proceed next to consider the 
burdens which your doctrine of Satisfactions im- 
poses on Christians-— burdens wholly useless and 
ineffective for the end for which they are imposed— 
the expiation of remitted sin. 

Be it remembered then, that according to your 
doctrine, penal works of Satisfaction are due to the 
justice of an angry God, after sin has been pardoned; 
and that such works must be continued through 
life, notwithstanding the performance of the works 
of Satisfaction assigned in confession, and notwith- 
standing the execution of all works necessary to 
gain Indulgences. Now let us consider what these 
Satisfactions are, which you thus recommend your 
people to continue through life. 

Amongst other penal Satisfactions for sin, the 
following are mentioned by Amort . Concealing 
one's self for a time in some Monastery or other 
secluded place,, and living in penitence there. 
Abstaining from meat and wine. Fasting on cer- 
tain days, especially on Wednesday, Friday, and 
Saturday, or feeding only on bread and water. 
Praying with bended knees, or with the arms 
extended in the figure of the Cross for a certain 
time, and at an appointed hour, before the Cross, 

Eusebii Amort, Theologia Eclectica Moralis et Scholastica 
sub auspiciis SS. D. N. Benedicti xiv, &c. t. xiv. p. 405, Ed. 
August. Vind. 1752. 



LETTER III. 



21 



or some other sacred image in the church. Lying 
on the ground for some time, or on a hard couch. 
Applying the scourge to one's self on certain days. 
Putting on sackcloth. Undertaking some religious 
pilgrimage. Reciting the penitential psalms and 
other penitential prayers. Visiting certain churches 
where there are stations, or some other great de- 
votion. Weekly fastings during life. Monthly 
confessions. Prayers every hour or half hour. 
The office of the Rosary on Sundays and Holy- 
days. 

Amongst penances mentioned by Alphonsus 
Liguori are, entering a Monastic order, Acts of 
grief every evening, " to visit every day the holy 
" Sacrament, and also the image of St. Mary, be- 
" seeching from them (!) the grace of perseverance; 
" to recite at least the third part of the Rosary, 
" and the Angelical salutation three times, every 
" morning and evening, saying, ' My mother 
" assist me to-day, that I sin not against God;' 
" which penance/' says Liguori, " of thrice reciting 
" the Angelical salutation with the aforesaid sup- 
" plication, it was my custom generally to enjoin, 
" or at least recommend to those who did not use 
£< them." Another penitential work is, " unre- 
" mitting recitation of the Angelical salutation in 
" honour of the purity of the most blessed Virgin, 
i( morning and evening, repeating always before 
M her image the resolution not to commit sin p „" 
p Ljgorio, Theologia Moralis, t. ix, p. 14. 



22 



LETTEIl III. 



Another is, " to make the sign of the cross nine or 
" five times on the ground with the tongue q ." Other 
penances may be assigned at the particular desire 
of the penitent, though at first with moderation : 
" It will be enough to allow them at the beginning 
4 ' some small mortification, but seldom; such as 
" scourging, an iron chain, abstinence, rather to 
" inspire a wish for mortifications, than to mortify 
" them as is fitting; and afterwards he [the Con- 
" fessor] may deal more liberally*." Liguori adds, 
that ordinary works of Christian piety may be 
openly performed, such as " frequenting the Sacra- 
l< ments, mental prayer, visitation of the Sacrament, 
" hearing mass with bended knees and recollection 
" of spirit," &c. " But works of extraordinary 
11 supererogation, and which savour of singularity, 
" such as the above-mentioned external penances 
" of sackcloth, scourges, prayer with expanded arms, 
fi eating bitter herbs, sighings, weeping at time of 
" prayer, ought to be concealed as far as possible 5 ." 

q a Illi, qui solitus fuit blasphemias proferre, insinuatur ut 
novies vel quinquies lingua signet crucem super terram." 
Ib. p. 15. 

r Satis erit ab initio eis concedere aliquam tenuem sed raram 
mortificationem, ut disciplinam, catenulam ferream, abstinen- 
tiara, potius ad ingerendum in eorum animis mortificationis 
desideriunx, quam ad eos ut convenit mortificandos. Ligorio, 
Theol. Mor. t. ix. p. 123. (Praxis Confessarii, n. 146.) 

1 Opera autem quae sapiunt singularitatem, ut supra enarrata? 
pcenitentiae externae ciliciorum, flagellorum, orationis cum 
brachiis in crucem expansis, comestionis herbarum amariorum, 



LETTER III. 



23 



Bouvier Bishop of Mans, in his Treatise on 
penance, recommends the following penances. 
Fasting on bread and water; abstinence from meat, 
wine, and fermented liquors; flagellations and sack- 
cloth ; holy pilgrimages, especially those made on 
foot ; watchings at night, and lying on the ground 
or on a hard bed ; genuflexions ; extensions of the 
arms ; or other painful postures of the body; absti- 
nence from pleasures, entertainments, games, hunt- 
ing, riding, rich dress, &c. ; pecuniary payments ; 
recitation of the psalms, Rosary, &c. ; meditation 
and mental prayer ; a certain number of repetitions 
of forms, called Acts of Faith, Hope, Charity, 
Humility, Contrition, &c; visitation of Churches ; 
adoration of the holy Sacrament ; exercises of re- 
ligion ; acts of piety towards our Lord, or towards 
the blessed Virgin, or towards the Saints f . 

Morinus mentions the following penances. Walk- 
ing with bare feet, or without shoes ; wearing 
painful garments ; using no carriage or horse ; 
scourging or discipline ; repetition of psalters ; 
wearing iron hoops round the body ; imprisonment ; 
genuflexions ; prostrations on the ground ; alms- 
giving ; voluntary exile ; entering a monastery, 
&c. &c. u According to Trevern, Bishop of Stras- 

suspiriorum, fietus tempore orationis, &c. occultari debent 
quantum possibile est. Ibid. p. 124. (n. 147.) 

1 Bouvier, De Pcenitentia, p. 150. (De operibus injun- 
gendis.) 

« Morinus, Tract, de Pcenitentia, lib. vii. c. 13, 14, 15. 



24 



LETTER III. 



burg; " true penitents, whether under the Law 
" or the Gospel, taking in hand the interests of 
" Heaven, have taken vengeance on themselves, 
" by voluntary punishments, for the sins they 
" have committed . . . witness those innumerable 
" penitents in all ages, who have peopled deserts 
" and monasteries, and lived there in privations, 
" and austerities, to expiate faults pardoned long 
<s before*." So that, according to your view, the 
mortifications of the Saints in all ages are to be 
regarded as so many penances voluntarily imposed 
for the expiation of their sins. These are the 
models which are held up for the instruction of 
those who wish to obtain remission of the tem- 
poral penalties supposed to be due to their re- 
mitted sins. And what then are the penances 
which such examples teach you to inflict on your- 
selves ? 

I shall not bring my readers to the Lives of the 
Saints contained in your Breviary, and point out 
the penances there held up to the admiration and 
imitation of the faithful ; such as, Continued ab- 
stinence from food for many weeks ; fasting on 
bread and water ; living for years in holes ex- 
cavated in the rocks ; the use of lacerating ban- 
dages, and iron chains continually worn round 
the body ; immersions in freezing water ; the ap- 
plication of nettles and scourges ; rolling one's self 
among thorns ; the use of belts set with needles ; 

x Trevern, Discussion Amicale, torn. ii. p. 206. 



LETTER III. 25 

of hair shirts ■ of iron crowns filled with points 
inside : of beds made of rough trunks of trees, 
and the interstices filled up with pottery. No, 
these, and many other self-inflicted torments for 
the expiation of sin already pardoned^ are well known 
to all who have investigated this subject, and I 
therefore need not dwell on them here at any 
length. 

But, Sir, I have to produce evidence as to the 
penances recommended or allowed amongst you 
at the present day, from a work to which I have 
already referred, and which will have additional 
weight as being known to proceed from your own 
pen : I mean, " The Lives of St. Alphonsus Liguori, 
&c. y " — a work published only two years ago, im- 
mediately after the Canonization of the distinguished 
individuals whose lives it contains. Suffer me 
then to make some extracts from this very au- 
thentic work, in illustration of the system which 
prevails, and of the species of penances which are 
authorized, in the Church of Rome. 

St. Alphonsus Liguori. — His mode of life 
with the Society he instituted was as follows. 
" Their house was small and inconvenient, their 
" beds a mere sack of straw resting on the floor ; 

and their only food, in general, was a dish of 

y The Lives of St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Francis de Girolamo^ 
St. John Joseph of the Cross, St. Pacificus of San Severino, 
and St. Veronica Giuliani, whose canonization took place on 
Trinity Sunday, 26th of May, 1839. London, 1839- 



26 



LETTER III. 



" soup, which was both insipid and disagreeable, 
" with a small quantity of fruit. The bread was 
" black and not even leavened, through the in- 
" experience of the lay-brother who made it, and 
" so hard that it was necessary to pound it in a 
M mortar before they could eat it. This miserable 
" food, which they ate kneeling or stretched upon 
" the ground, they rendered still more nauseous, 
44 by sprinkling it over with some bitter stuff, 
" and many of them, before eating, licked the 
44 floor with their tongue. They disciplined them- 
" selves three times in each week." (p. 15.) " He 
44 surpassed all his companions in the exactness 
" with which he observed all the rules and obli- 
" gations of the order ; but seeing the severity 
" with which he disciplined himself, and the 
4< austerity of his fasts and mortifications, it was 
" a source of wonder how he could live. He 
" was content with a small quantity of soup and 
44 bread with some fruit, although he never touched 
44 the latter upon Saturday, and the Vigils of our 
44 Lady. He wore continually rough hair-shirts, 
4< with small iron chains and a girdle of camel's 
44 hair." (p. 20.) 

44 Every morning and evening, the missionaries 
44 preached to the adults and catechized the chil- 
44 dren. For the first three evenings, they went 
44 round the most populous streets with a crucifix, 
44 calling upon the inhabitants to remember the last 
44 things, and to come to hear the word of God. 



LETTER III. 



27 



" Alphonsus, who delivered the principal sermon in 
" the evening, was accustomed to discipline himself 
" with a thick rope three times during the mission ; 
■ 1 once during the sermon upon sin ; a second time 
" during that upon hell; and a third during that 
" upon scandal; and when the women had left the 
f* church, after the evening sermon, and the men 

alone remained, a sermon upon compunction was 
" addressed to them, to excite them to discipline 
" themselves." (p. 24.) " His food was of the 
" most inferior kind, and even this he sprinkled 
" w 7 ith wormwood and other bitter herbs, so that 
" the poor, who flocked to him, refused to eat 
" of what he had left of it. His attendants were 
"few in number, and he treated them on every 
" occasion with the greatest kindness and sweet- 
" ness. His mortifications seemed to increase both 
" in severity and frequency, and one day his secre- 
" tary had to burst open his door, and snatch the 
" discipline out of his hands, fearing lest the 
• * violence wherewith he scourged himself might 
" cause his death." (p. 31.) 

St. Francis m Girolamo. " When the Sunday 
" came, he first spent two hours in mental prayer, 
" after which he scourged himself long and severely 
" with the discipline (a practice he observed daily 
" at the hour of rising), then said mass." (p. 72.) 
64 After the discourse on his knees at the foot of 
" the Cross, he scourged his shoulders with the 
il discipline> and then once more betook himself to 



LETTER III. 



the Confessional." (p. 73.) " A youth of dis- 
ordered life was so moved by another sermon 
of Francis, that in public, overcoming every 
human respect, he cast himself at the foot of the 
crucifix, exclaiming, 4 Father, I am lost ; for 
nearly twenty years I have not been a confessor/ 
and so saying, wept bitterly, and lashed himself 
with the discipline." (p. 93.) 
St. John Joseph of the Cross. u He early 
manifested his attachment to the Cross, sleeping 
upon a narrow hard bed, and fasting on appointed 
days during the week ; and as he mortified the 
flesh betimes, so also he checked all pride, by 
constantly wearing mean clothes. " (p. 121.) 
Once he had to perform a journey of considerable 
distance, and set out with alacrity, although his 
limbs were afflicted with grievous ulcers. ... He 
had not gone far, when, slipping on the ice, he 
fell, and cruelly lacerated his wounded limbs, so 
that he could hardly stand upright ; still, with 
heroic fortitude and perseverance, he prosecuted 

and accomplished his task A rough seat 

and a table, a bed consisting of two narrow 
planks, with two sheep-skins and a wretched 
woollen coverlet, a stool to rest his w T ounded legs 
upon — these, with his breviary, formed the whole 
furniture of his cell." (p. 143.) 
" We come now to speak of his extraordinary 
' mortifications. To the numerous penitential 
1 austerities enjoined by his order, he added as 



LETTER III. 



29 



** many more as an ingenious self-denial could 
" devise. He guarded his senses most particu- 
" larly ; even in his youth he would not permit 
" himself the liberty of lifting his eyes to the 
" roof of his cell; and when he was a priest, he 
" made it a rule to look no one whomsoever 
" in the face. His ears he mortified by denying 
46 them the gratification of music. He would not 
" even smell a flower. Silent as long as possible, 
<f when he spoke, it was in a low voice. Bare- 
" headed in all seasons, he wore under his rough 
" and heavy habit divers hair-shirts and chains, 
" which he was careful to vary to keep the sense 
" of torment ever fresh. Besides, he used the 
" discipline to a severe degree ; and when at the 
" age of forty, his superior obliged him to wear 
" sandals, he placed between them and his feet a 
" quantity of small nails ; but the most tremendous 
" instrument of torture which he devised against 
" himself, was a cross about a foot in length, 
" set with rows of sharp nails, which he fastened 
" tight over his shoulders, so as to open there 
" a wound which never after closed. Another 
" similar but smaller cross he wore attached to 
M his breast. But his abridgment of sleep was 
" truly wonderful, and he never took it, save seated 
" on the ground, or cramped up in his little bed, 
" often with his head leaning against a piece of 
" wood jutting from the wall. No less singular 
" was his abstinence. For the last thirty years of 



30 



LETTER III. 



u his life, he entirely overcame that most insatiable 
" of wants, thirst, absolutely abstaining not merely 
" from wine and water, but from every liquid 
" whatsoever." (p. 147, 148.) 

St. Pacificus of San Seveeino, " As about 
" the middle of his life he became deaf, his brethren 
" heard the prayers which he uttered almost with- 
" out interruption, for he took only three or four 
" hours of sleep on a bed, so rough and uncomfort- 
" able, that it seemed made for mortification and 
" torment, rather than ease and repose. Upon 
" the vigils preceding the festivals of the Church, 
" especially those dedicated to our blessed Lady, he 
" fasted on water and a small piece of bread, which 
" he had kept for the week before exposed to the 
" scorching heat of the sun. He went almost barefoot 
" and without any covering on his legs, although 
" the ulcers before mentioned inspired compassion 
" and horror in all who chanced to see them." 
(p. 181.) " Pacificus felt a particular devotion 
" towards his good angel, the chaste spouse of 
" Mary, St. Joseph, and St. Francis of Asisium, 
" whose custom of keeping seven lents during the 
" year he faithfully followed, even in his old age, 
" until his superiors commanded him to abandon 
"it." (p. 188.) "Trusting in the certainty of 
" divine retribution, he subjected his body to 
" rigorous fasts, and severe disciplines, to take 
" which, besides the three times each week pre- 
" scribed by the rule, he was often watched retiring 



LETTER III. 



31 



" to the belfry, or some other secret place, that he 
" might not be seen by men." (p. 191.) 

" He used every artifice to hide his mortifications 
" and cruel disciplines from others,, and anxiously 
" sought to conceal the supernatural powers which 
" God had imparted to him. Who can say with 
" what severe mortifications and fasts he subdued 
cf his body? Besides fasting, as we have seen, 
" three times in the week, until his superiors re- 
H stricted him to Friday and Saturday, whereon he 
" sometimes did not even taste a morsel of bread 
li or a drop of water, and the Lents of St. Francis, 
" he made the little that he did eat a means of 
" additional mortification, by mixing his food with 
" ashes, as was attested by many who observed 
"him attentively. And another more remarkable 
" example will confirm what we have just said. 
" On occasion of the pardon of Asisium, a fair 
" used in his time to be held in a square, near the 
" convent of Forano, Pachicus passing through it, 
" and smelling the flesh of roasted pork, said 
" several times to his companion, 1 Do you perceive 
" this smell V The other, supposing that he had 
" a desire of tasting some of the flesh, told the 
" superior, who immediately ordered a piece of it 
" to be brought and placed before him at table. 
u He did not touch it, but requested the brother 
" who served at table to gratify him by placing it 
" before him until he should have eaten it. His 
" request was complied with, and each day it was 



32 



LETTER III. 



" brought to table, until at last, when it was putrid, 
" he eat it, saying to himself, ( Eat vile body; it is 
" not pork now as it was at first.' " (p. 207, 208.) 

" Besides the regular disciplines prescribed by 
" rule three times in the week, he cruelly scourged 
" himself thrice each day, with chains or cords, so 
' ' as to fill all with horror, who heard the whistling 
" of the lash, or saw the abundance of blood which 
" he shed during the flagellation. Covered with 
" hair-shirts, he undertook long journeys over 
" thorns and sharp stones, slept little, never ap- 
" preached the fire, and kept the window and door 
" of his cell open, in the most rigorous winters, 
" in order to hear the bell summoning him to the 
" duties of the community." (p. 208.) " Not 
" being aware, through his defect in sight and 

V hearing, of the presence of any one in his room, 

V he rose from his bed, and placing himself devoutly 
" on his knees, recited three Ave Marias, saying at 
" the end, with singular earnestness, ' Let these be, 
" O my God, in satisfaction for my sins. 1 He 
" would have prayed much longer, but his illness 
" prevented him ; and as it became every moment 
" more and more violent, the holy Sacrament of 
" Extreme Unction was administered." (p. 217.) 

St. Veronica Giuliani. " When she was about 
" three years old, she heard an account of the 
" sufferings of the saints, and especially of the 
" martyrs, — when she instantly ran and placed her 
" hands in a fire, whence she did not draw them 



LETTER III. 



33 



" out until the whole family had been brought by 
" the smell into the room." (p. 226.) 44 A desire/' 
she said, 44 came into my head of asking my con- 
" fessor for some mortification, but I did not yield 
44 to it. Still I made sufferings for myself, but all 
44 without my confessor's leave; such as the disci- 
44 pline, walking on my bare knees, pricking myself 
" with a pin, kissing some filthy spot, and beating 
" myself with thistles. If I heard of the works 
44 of penance performed by others, I went to the 
44 image of my Saviour, and said, 4 Lord, if I had 
44 their instruments of mortification, I would do the 
44 same ; but since I have them not, I offer thee my 
44 desire.' He has often let me know and remember 
44 that he made me (at that age) affectionate imp- 
utations." (p. 227, 228.) 44 One of the com- 
44 mands given to Veronica after her espousals 
" [with our Saviour !], was, that she should encrease 
44 her fasting ; and about a year after that event, 
44 she received a direct injunction from God to fast 
44 for three whole years upon nothing but bread and 
44 water." (p. 257.) 



I shall not further pursue this branch of the 
subject. What has been now adduced is quite 
enough for my purpose, which is, to afford some 
general notion of the consequences which naturally 
flow from your doctrine of Temporal penalties, 
and Satisfactions for them. If it be true, as you 
imagine, that God reserves awful 44 scourges" in 

c 



34 



LETTER III. 



his hands, when he receives the pardoned sinner 
into his favour : if God is still in " wrath" and 
" anger" with justified believers ; if they are still 
liable to the demands of his " justice," and of 
his " vengeance if the temporal punishments 
which he " reserves" are, while they last, of the 
same sort as those of Hell ; and if the wrath of 
God and the infernal tortures which he designs 
to inflict on his justified and sanctified children, 
may be averted by their inflicting on themselves 
torments in this life ; I most fully admit, that it 
is the duty of every Christian to live in a state of 
fear and of torment. No amount of bodily suffering 
can be considered excessive, if it can appease the 
w r rath of God and avert his vengeance. A soul 
bowed down beneath the miserable thought that 
it is not at peace with God, will act naturally and 
even piously in seeking for the greatest amount 
of afflictions and mortifications that can be ob- 
tained during life. AYho that believes in God, 
and regards him as the Fountain of all good, — 
who that feels the reality of his existence, his 
promises, and his threatenings, would hesitate to 
do any works, or submit to any sufferings, in order 
to gain his favour ? Faith would oblige him to 
stretch forth both his hands for this bitter cup, 
and drain it to the very dregs. 

You therefore act only consistently, when your 
lives are spent in the most dreadful mortifications 
and penances for remitted sins. You hold that Con- 



LETTER III. 



35 



trition does not generally remit all the " scourges" 
due to your sins, or restore you to peace with God ; 
that Confession and Absolution still leave you in 
the same state of uncertainty ; that Satisfaction 
enjoined by the Confessor does not render you 
secure ; that Indulgences may fail ; and, in fine, 
that voluntary Satisfactions, voluntary penances 
during life, are the only remedy which you can 
adopt in this world. If therefore a Romanist 
understands the system taught by authority in his 
Church, and be earnest in his religious views, he 
must spend a life of self-inflicted torment. 

Nor is this all. If Contrition, and Confession, 
and Absolution ; if imposed Satisfactions, and In- 
dulgences afford no assurance of the remission of 
God's " scourges;" what assurance can there be, 
that a life of torment will avert them ? What 
reasonable assurance can there be, that self-imposed 
obligations can succeed, when the Divine method of 
obtaining remission of sin,— w 7 hen true Repentance, 
that " second plank," as St. Jerome calls it, has 
failed ? For let us consider a moment, that accord- 
ing to your doctrine, a temporal punishment equal 
to that of hell is due to your remitted sins. 
Now is it to be imagined for a moment, that any 
penances which we may suffer in this short life, 
can be an equivalent for torments resembling those 
of Hell? Remember that you know not how long 
the pains of Purgatory may continue; you know 
nothing more about them, than that they are 



36 



LETTER III. 



superior to any sufferings endured in this life, that 
they resemble those of Hell. If then Divine 
justice is to be satisfied even " to the last 
farthing/' as you allege • what reasonable ground 
is there for believing, that even a life of self-imposed 
penances can appease the wrath of God, and save 
you from the dread scourges of his vengeance in 
Purgatory? 

The necessary result then of your doctrine of 
Temporal punishments and Satisfactions is, that 
the contrite and justified child of God, the chosen 
vessel of his grace, the sanctified instrument of his 
will, is bound to spend his life in penal labours 
and self-inflicted torments, without any well-founded 
hope of appeasing the wrath of God. He is to 
look on his God as still frowning in anger upon 
him ; to think with anguish of the scourges and 
tortures of the damned, which God is preparing to 
shower upon him. This is to be his feeling through 
life ; and even in death he is to look on God as 
still probably unreconciled ; and as only awaiting 
the moment of his departure from this life, to hurry 
his soul into that fire which is prepared for the 
Devil and his angels ! 

And is this the hope, is this the peace, the joy, 
the consolation, which you offer to Christians? 
You are loud in your assurances that the sacra- 
ment of Penance brings peace and consolation to 
the wounded conscience. According to the Council 
of Trent, " the substance and effect of the sacrament 



LETTER III. 



37 



" of Penance, as far as relates to its power and 
" efficacy, is reconciliation with God, which some- 
" times produces in pious persons, and those who 
" receive this sacrament w T ith devotion, peace and 
" tranquillity of conscience \ with vehement consolation 
" of spirit*." In the same manner, the Catechism 
of the Council of Trent observes, that " the whole 
" efficacy of Penitence consists in its restoring us 
" to the favour of God, and uniting us in the 
" utmost friendship with Him; and this reconcili- 
4C ation is sometimes followed in the case of pious 
" men w T ho receive this sacrament in a holy and 
" religious manner, by the greatest peace and tran- 
" quillity of conscience, with exceeding joyfulness of 
" spirit*." Dr. Miller, one of your nominal 
bishops, apostrophizes the sacrament of Penance 
thus: "O sweet balm of the wounded spirit! O 
" sovereign restorative of the soul's life and 
" vigour b !" and observes, that Romanists con- 
tinually find persons who are desirous " of laying the 
" sins cf their youth and their ignorances at the feet 
" of some one or other of" the Romish ministers, 
" convinced that thereby they would procure ease 
" to their afflicted souls V Trevern, Bishop of Stras- 
burg, in describing the penitence of a Roman 
Catholic, says, that his spiritual director, 44 when he 

s Cone. Trid. Sessio xiv. c. iii. 
a Catechismus, Pars ii. c. xxxiii. 
b End of Controversy, Lett. xx. 
c lb. Lett. xli. 



38 



LETTER III. 



" judges him sufficiently disposed, exhorts him to 
44 employ redoubled fervour in his approaches to 
44 reconciliation, in order to obtain by humble 
" prayers God's ratification of the sentence of 
44 pardon which will be pronounced to him on 
44 earth : when the moment has arrived, he pro- 
" nounces solemnly this wished for Absolution; 
41 then consolation, calm, and ease, enter the con- 
" science of the penitent, in place of the burden 
" which had before oppressed him. He feels him- 
44 self altogether different from what he was; he is no 
44 more the same man d ." 

Such are the delights which you promise in 
the sacrament of Penance ; but how delusively ! 
Is it consolation, to know that we are still, after 
the remission of sins, liable to the demands of 
44 Divine justice ?" Is it peace, to feel that we are 
still subject to God's 44 wrath?" Is it joy, to think 
that we are subject to his 44 vengeance;" to the 
44 scourges which he still retains in his hands?" 
Is it rest, to feel that a life of torment will not 
suffice to appease the " anger" of God, and that 
even beyond the grave his 44 vengeance" will 
pursue us amidst the torments of the damned ? 
Is this peace, consolation, reconciliation, calmness, 
tranquillity of conscience, hope in this world and 
in the next? Nay, is this remission of sins? 

What is Remission of sins, if it be not remission 
of their penalties, and of the anger of God so justly 
d Discuss. Amic. t. ii. p. 201. 



LETTER III. 



39 



due to them ? If the penalties of sin were retained, 
sin would not be remitted. When we say that a 
sin is pardoned, we mean that God forgives its 
guilt and its penalties, that He is reconciled to the 
penitent sinner, and that his anger is appeased. 
If then, as you maintain, God is still unreconciled 
to the sinner, still in wrath, still seeking for 
punishment, still reserving some of the scourges 
due to sin ; it cannot be that sin has been re- 
mitted — the sinner must still be alienated from 
God ; unless you would maintain that God is 
reconciled and unreconciled, forgiving and unfor- 
giving, appeased and unappeased, angry and well- 
pleased at the same moment towards the same 
person, 

Your doctrine, Sir, needs only to be known, to 
secure its rejection by every one who can (even 
imperfectly) feel the love and mercy of God, the 
consistency of his dealings with his creatures, the 
nature of the remission of sins, and the privileges 
of a state of justification and grace. To state your 
doctrine is to refute it. This is all 1 have been 
able to do in this Letter ; I have not entered on 
any refutation of the arguments you advance in its 
favour, nor have I brought the weight of Scripture 
and of Catholic Tradition to its overthrow. This 
must form the subject of another Letter ; but before 
I close the present, I must make some further 
observations on the subject of satisfactions and 



40 



LETTER III. 



mortifications, with a view to prevent misrepre- 
sentations. 

Do not imagine then, that in condemning the 
load of observances, of servile works, and of self- 
inflicted tortures, which your system imposes on 
its votaries, with a view to obtain remission of the 
temporal penalties of their sins, we mean in any 
degree to remove the obligation of self-denial, and 
the expediency of a reasonable degree of mortifi- 
cation. We have no intention to speak with any 
thing except reverence of the austerities of the 
ancient saints, though they may appear to us in 
several instances excessive, and not to be imitated. 
But the reason for which we distinguish between 
these austerities and those which you recommend 
is, because they are performed on totally different 
motives. The saints of old mortified their senses ; 
underwent many afflictions ; sat in sackcloth and 
ashes ; wept and mourned ; spent their lives in 
self-denial ; were abundant in fruits of penitence : 
but what was their motive ? It was either to obtain 
remission of sin not yet remitted, or else to mortify 
the passions and wishes of the natural man, and to 
conform themselves to the image of their Divine 
Master. Their motive then was what we cannot 
but approve ; though we may not think it necessary 
for Christians to undertake such severe exercises 
of self-denial as many holy men have practised. 

But what is your motive in recommending such 



LETTER III. 



41 



painful works ? It is to obtain remission of a 
portion of the penalties of sin already remitted : it 
is to appease the anger of a God, whose anger is 
already appeased. Mortifications have with you 
taken a new character : they are no longer merely 
what they were to the saints, means of subduing 
evil habits and inclinations, and of detaching the 
soul from sublunary concerns. No : they are expi- 
ations for sins remitted — atonements made to an 
offended God for sins which He has pardoned. 
8uch mortifications and penances are worse than 
useless. They are mistaken ; injurious to God ; 
inconsistent with the spirit of the Gospel, and 
with the belief and practice of Catholic Antiquity, 
It is to such satisfactions that we do most strongly 
object, and against which we shall always contend 
to the utmost of our power. 

1 am, Sir, 
Your obedient Servant, 

WILLIAM PALMER. 

Oxford, May 3, 1841. 



BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD. 



BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 



Just published, 

A LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. (calling himself Bishop of 
Melipotamus,) containing REMARKS on his LETTER to Mr. 
NEWMAN. Price \s. 

A SECOND LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. on the FOUNDATION 
of the ROMISH DOCTRINES of SATISFACTION, INDULG- 
ENCES, PURGATORY, and SUFFRAGES for the DEAD. 
Price Is. 

Nearly ready, 

A FOURTH LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. on the ROMISH 
DOCTRINE of SATISFACTION (concluded). 



*** This Series of Letters will be continued. 



A 



FOURTH LETTER 



N. WISEMAN, D.D. 

ON THE ROMISH DOCTRINE OF 

SATISFACTIONS. 

(concluded.) 



BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A. 

OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD. 



OXFORD, 

JOHN HENRY PARKER ; 
J. G. F. AND J. RIVTNGTON, LONDON, 

1841- 



BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD. 



A 

FOURTH LETTER, 



Sir, 

In my last Letter little more was done than to 
state your doctrine of Satisfaction, and to point out 
a few of its consequences. I am persuaded that a 
candid examination of those consequences, and of 
the contrasts (also noticed) between the Gospel and 
your doctrines on this subject, ought to suffice for 
the satisfaction of any reasonable mind ; but in 
order to prevent any possibility of escape, it may 
be advisable to examine in detail the various 
arguments which yourself and other Romish con- 
troversialists have advanced, in support of your 
view of Satisfactions, and to establish the Catholic 
doctrine opposed to yours by the authority of 
Scripture and of Catholic Tradition. 

Let me then again state your doctrine of Satis- 
faction. According to the Catechism of Trent, 
" Satisfaction is compensation for the injury done 
" to another a ," and more particularly " that com- 

a Ita satisfactio nihil aliud est quam injuries alteri illatee 
compensatio. Pars ii. c. 85. 

A 2 



4 



LETTER IV. 



" pensation, when man pays somewhat to God for 
" the sins which he has committed 1 ." Tournely 
says, that Satisfaction is " the payment of a debt 
" which was contracted by sin or by offending 
" God c ." You yourself and other Roman theolo- 
gians always employ the term as equivalent to the 
payment of a debt due to Divine Justice. 

With reference to the particular debt which is to 
be discharged by Satisfaction, you speak thus : 
" We believe that upon this forgiveness of sins, [in 
*' the Sacrament of Penance,] that is, after the 
" remission of that eternal debt, which God in his 
" justice awards to transgressions against his law, 
" he has been pleased to reserve a certain degree 
" of inferior or temporary punishment, appropriate 
" to the guilt which had been incurred; and it is 
" on this part of the punishment alone, that, ac- 
" cording to the Catholic doctrine, satisfaction can 
" be made to God." (Lectures ii. 41.) 

What are your arguments in support of this 
doctrine ? 

1. You appeal to our " natural feelings" in 
proof that calamities and sufferings in this world 
are intended as punishments for our sins pardoned, 
(p. 42.) That appeal I have already answered, and 
have proved, that this attempt to connect suffering 

b Cum homo pro peccatis commissis Deo aliquid persolvit. 
Ibid. 

c Solutio est debiti quod contractum est ex delicto seu 
offensa Dei. De Pcenit. t. ii. p. 2. 



LETTER IV. 



5 



with the sin of him who commits it, leads to the 
inference that our Lord himself was sinful, which is 
a damnable heresy. I have also shewn, that it is 
an article of faith that calamities and sufferings 
are sent to the justified, in order to purify their 
hearts, and to procure for them a higher degree of 
glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ. 

IT. Your next appeal is to the holy Scripture. 
" The very first principles of moral conduct, 
" whether in the Old or the New Law, seem 
" connected with the necessity of purifications 
" and works,, painful or disagreeable, or with suf- 
" ferings sent by Divine Providence, as inflictions 
" justly deserved. Thus, we remark constantly 
" in the Old Law visible demonstrations of re- 
" pentance and sorrow, after sin has been forgiven" 
(Lectures ii. 43.) 

In proof of this, we are referred (p. 43.) to the 
case of David's punishment for his conduct to 
Uriah (2 Kings xii. 14.) ; to the chastisement 
inflicted for numbering the people (2 Kings xxiv. 
11.); and to the penalty suffered by Moses and 
Aaron for their sin, (Numb. xx. 12, 24. Deut. xxxiv. 
4.) These passages have been examined in my 
Second Letter, in which it has been shewn, that 
God's mode of dealing with mankind in those 
ages required the infliction of such punishments, 
but that under the Gospel they are no longer 
requisite. In the second case mentioned, the 



6 



LETTER IV. 



chastisement was not inflicted for pardoned sin, 
and therefore it cannot assist you. 

Your next proofs are as follows: "We see 
" Job, after he had transgressed in words, or 
" rather exceeded in speech, therefore humbling 
" himself, and declaring that he did penance in 
" dust and ashes (Job xlii. 6.); when the men of 
" Nineveh had their destruction proclaimed to them 
" by the Prophet, the most obvious and natural 
" expiation of their sins, appeared to them the 
" publication of a general fast ; and all from the 
£; king on his throne to the very animals in their 
" stalls, were commanded to fast for three days, 
" saying, ' Who can tell if God will turn and for- 
" give, and will turn away from his fierce anger, 
" and we shall not perish. (Jonas iii. 9.)" 

Nothing, Sir, can more plainly demonstrate 
the difficulty under which you labour in the at- 
tempt to procure the support of Scripture for 
your doctrine, than this most unhappy appeal to 
the cases of Job, and of the men of Nineveh. It 
is perfectly clear, that penitential works in both 
these instances were intended to obtain remission 
of the guilt and punishment of sin not yet pardoned, 
and that there is not the remotest ground for 
imagining, that they were designed to avert the 
temporal penalties of remitted sin. Job declares 
his " repentance in dust and ashes" immediately 
after he had been rebuked by God, (chapter xL xli.) 



LETTER IV. 



7 



The inhabitants of Nineveh repented with fasting, 
immediately after it had been said to them by Jonas, 
" Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." 
(Jonah iii. 4.) Jt was only after their " fasting" 
and " turning from their evil ways," that God 
" repented of the evil that he had said that he 
" would do unto them ; and he did it not," 
(verse 10.) Their sin, in short, was only forgiven 
after they had performed penitential works, where- 
as your doctrine is, that sin is forgiven before such 
works are offered, and that the latter only avert 
its temporal penalties. I shall hereafter prove to 
you, that works of repentance are necessary to 
the forgiveness of sin — a truth which your theo- 
logians deny, notwithstanding all their pretended 
advocacy of that branch of Repentance. The 
examples of Job and of the men of Nineveh 
establish this doctrine, while they are wholly op- 
posed to your view. 

You observe, that " our first parents' sin was 
forgiven, and yet the most bitter consequences 
were entailed on them and their posterity on its 
account (p. 44.);" but you forget that the sin of 
Adam, which has passed on all men, can be no 
measure of the effects of other sins; and that a 
sin, which God was bound by his own special pro- 
mise to punish with temporal death, is widely 
different from our sins, which are under no such 
threat. 

You next proceed to argue, that " if we find 



6 



LETTER IV. 



" God, from the beginning, forgiving sins with the 
" reservation of some smaller punishment, and at 
" the same time, his chosen servants, instructed 
" by him, acting under the conviction, that by 
" penitential acts that punishment could be averted 
<e or mitigated, we have equal reason to maintain, 
" so long as there is nothing positively defined to 
" the contrary, that the punishment and its ex- 
" piation are continued in the New Testament." 
(Lectures ii. 44.) 

I deny that the reserve of temporal punishments 
in some instances under the former dispensations, 
after sin has been remitted, implies any similar 
mode of dealing under the New Testament ; be- 
cause under former dispensations, God visibly ruled 
the world by a system of temporal rewards and 
punishments ; and had notorious sin escaped with- 
out any penalty, (except in cases where God him- 
self prescribed a way of remission, such as the 
offering of sacrifice,) the economy of the Divine 
government would have been disturbed, sin would 
have been encouraged, and its penalties no longer 
feared. But under the New Testament, God does 
not visibly govern the world by temporal rewards 
and punishments, therefore it is not necessary under 
the Gospel that remitted sin should be temporally 
punished ; and no argument can be brought from 
God's conduct in this respect under former dis- 
pensations. 

But besides this, I deny that there is any thing 



LETTER IV. 9 

in the Old Testament, to lead us to suppose that 
temporal penalties threatened to remitted sins can 
be averted. Did David succeed in averting them 
by all his satisfactions or penitential works ? Did 
Adam and Eve try to avert them ? Did Moses and 
Aaron ? As to the penitential works of Job, and of 
the men of Nineveh, they were intended to procure 
remission of sin, not merely remission of its temporal 
penalties after sin had been pardoned. I admit 
that penitential works are continued under the New 
Testament, but they are continued for something 
more than the remission of the temporal penalties 
of sin. 

As to the objection to human satisfaction, arising 
" from its being considered essentially derogating 
" to Christ's infinite merits," (Lectures ii. 45.) I 
am not disposed to maintain the validity of this 
objection here ; because it would lead to a length- 
ened discussion, and the objection may in one 
sense be valid, and in another invalid. I shall 
therefore proceed to other matters. 

Let us come then to your proofs from the New 
Testament. " Does our Saviour ever tell us, that 
" from thenceforth fasting, one of the most usual 
" methods for afflicting the soul for sin committed, 
" shall cease under his law? Does he not, on the 
" contrary, assure us, that the moment he, the 
" bridegroom, should be taken away, his children 
' - should fast?" (p. 46.) 

Certainly, he does so ; but at the same moment 



10 



LETTER IV. 



he does not give the slightest hint that we are to 
fast for the purpose of procuring remission of the 
temporal penalties of our pardoned sins — which is 
exactly the point you have to establish. 

" Did he reprove those who had believed that 
" penance in sackcloth and ashes was efficacious 
lt for the forgiveness of sin ; and not rather propose 
" them as an example, and say that the men of 
" Nineveh shall arise in judgment against that 
" generation, because at the preaching of Jonas, 
" they did penance in that way?" (Ibid.) 

All very true, and at the same time destructive 
of your doctrine. For if our Saviour proposed as 
an example, those who " believed that penance in 
" sackcloth and ashes was efficacious for the for- 
" giveness of sin," he censured those who believe 
that " upon the forgiveness of sins, that is, after the 
" remission of that eternal debt," God reserves a 
temporal punishment, and that " it is on this part 
" of the punishment alone," that " satisfaction 
l ' can be made to God." (p. 41.) I ask you there- 
fore in your own words ; " Does he, on any single 
" occasion, limit the efficacy of these practices, and 
" tell his disciples, that if hitherto they have been 
" considered of value towards the remission of 
" sin, they had from that moment lost that worth, 
" and were to be employed in future upon different 
" principles, and for different motives ?" (p. 46.) 
How can you answer this question of your own ? 
You do not admit that Satisfactions remit sin, 



LETTER IV. 



1 I 



though Jonah, and the men of Nineveh, and our 
Lord himself, as you allow, teach that they do 
remit sin. You believe that sin is remitted before 
satisfactions are undertaken; that satisfactions are 
not necessary for the remission of sin, but only for 
the remission of its temporal penalties. What have 
you to say then ? 

Your concluding argument is as follows : 
" But what shall we say of the language of St. 
" Paul, when he declares, writing to the Colossians, 
" ' I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill 
" up those things w 7 hich are w r anting of the suffer- 
" ings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which 
" is the Church?' (Coloss. i. 24.) What is want- 
" ing of Christ's sufferings ! And this to be 
" supplied by man, and in his flesh ! What sort of 
" doctrine call we this? Is it in favour of the 
" completeness of Christ's sufferings, as to their 
<f application? Or rather does it not suppose that 
" much is to be done by man, towards possessing 
iS himself of the treasures laid up in our Saviour's 
"redemption? And that suffering is the means 
" whereby this application is made ?" (p. 47.) 

Well : suppose all this true, and how does it 
prove your doctrine ? Suppose if you please, that 
" much is to be done by man," and " that suffering 
" is the [a] means w T hereby this application is 
" made." Does this prove that suffering is the 
means of obtaining remission of the temporal penal- 
ties of pardoned sins ? I see no connexion whatever 



12 



LETTER IV. 



between such a conclusion, and those to which you 
have actually come. Suppose that sufferings in- 
flicted by God (of which the Apostle speaks) con- 
form the Christian to his Divine Master, and obtain 
a greater degree of glory; surely it does not follow, 
that sufferings, whether voluntarily undertaken, or 
imposed by God, remit the temporal penalties of 
forgiven sin. This may pass for good reasoning in 
the " Roman schools " but it is really quite beyond 
our dull northern understandings. 

III. I now come to your proofs from Tradition, 
omitting various explanations which you afford as 
to the practice of your Church in the matter of 
Satisfaction. 

" If what I have stated be the doctrine of the 
" Gospel, we must naturally expect to find some 
" institution in the Church from its earliest times, 
" for the faithful practice of so essential a part of 
' ' God's dispensations. And accordingly from the 
" beginning, we find nothing so prominently in- 
" culcated, either in the writings of the early 
c< Fathers, or in the discipline of the universal 
" Church, as this necessity of doing penance and 
" making satisfaction to God. It is the basis of 
" the system, known by the name of the peni- 
" tential canons, in which those who had trans- 
" gressed were condemned to different punishments, 
*' according to the measure of their offences. . . . 
" This system surely must have had its root in 
" the strong conviction of the early Church, that 



LETTER IV. 



13 



" such practices were meritorious in the sight of 
" God ; that they brought down his mercy on the 
V* sinner, and propitiated his wrath. And what is 
" all this but the belief of the doctrine of Satis- 
" faction?" (p. 49.) 

Excuse me, Sir ; this is indeed a doctrine of 
Satisfaction ; but it is not yours. The primitive 
Church did, as you say, believe that penitential 
works " brought down God's mercy on sinners, 
" and propitiated his wrath," but they never be- 
lieved that after the sinner w T as placed in a state 
of grace by the remission of his sins, he was still 
bound to perform penitential works w T ith a view 
to appease the " wrath" of God. No, Sir, the 
Satisfactions required by the primitive Church 
were, as you doubtless know r perfectly well, per- 
formed before Absolution was given, or the penitent 
restored to Communion d . After that restoration, 
no one ever dreamt of exacting penance from those 
who were thus reconciled, except when they had 
been admitted to Communion under the immediate 
apprehension of death. Thus then the whole 
practice of the primitive Church with reference to 
penances is wholly subversive of your doctrine. 
The primitive Church required penitential works 
before the remission of sin, therefore she believed 

a See Morinus de Pcenitentia, lib. ix. c. 3, 15, 17, where he 
proves, that except in very peculiar and extreme cases. Abso- 
lution was given after Satisfaction had been performed, even 
up to the twelfth century. 



14 



LETTER IV. 



them necessary to obtain the remission of sin 
(" culpa" as well as " poena") ; and she exacted 
no such works after sin was remitted, therefore 
she either did not believe them necessary for the 
remission of temporal penalties, or else held that 
they were unavailing. Be assured, Sir, that you 
will not find me amongst those modern " writers" 
to whom you allude, " who have treated of the 
" practice of the Catholic Church upon this point, 
" as derived from the Fathers," and who, as you 
say, " fairly give it up." (p. 49.) 

The passages which you proceed to quote from 
the Fathers are all condemnatory of your doc- 
trine and practice, and directly establish that 
which I shall presently maintain in opposition to 
yours. 

St. Cyprian, you say, writes thus: " Do entire 
" penance; evince the contrition of a sorrowing 
" and grieving mind. That penance which may 
** satisfy, remains alone to be done ; but they shut 
" the door to satisfaction, who deny the necessity 
" of penance. Whoso shall thus have made satis- 
" faction to God, and, by penance for his sin, have 
" acquired more courage and confidence from the 
" very circumstance of his fall, he whom the Lord 
" has heard and aided, shall give joy to the Church ; 
" he shall deserve not pardon only, but a crown." 
On this your own remark is, " whoever then does 
" this penance, can merit not only pardon, but a 
" crown of eternal reward." (p. 50.) 



LETTER IV. 



15 



I do not offer any remarks on the inaccurate and 
garbled nature of this quotation from St. Cyprian, 
though they are richly merited ; but shall merely 
observe, that this holy Father, even according to 
your own interpretation, regarded penitential works 
or satisfactions as means of obtaining " pardon" of 
sins, and " a crown of eternal reward." His notions 
of the value of satisfactions were therefore widely 
different from yours. You believe that sin and its 
eternal punishment are remitted before penitential 
works are performed. St. Cyprian believed such 
works necessary to the remission of sin; and in the 
Treatise from which the above passage is taken, 
condemns most vehemently those who admitted 
penitents to Communion, without any previous 
satisfaction. 

" In the following and in succeeding centuries," 
you say, " we have innumerable passages from the 
" Fathers who wrote regarding the penitential 
" canons; we have them laying it down as the 
" principle of those laws, that satisfaction was 
" necesary to expiate offences committed." (p. 50.) 

Certainly, Sir, they held penitential works ne- 
cessary for the remission of sins in general, not 
merely for the remission of its temporal penalties, 
which is, you assure us, ™ the Catholic doctrine." 
(p. 41.) Therefore, by your own shewing, the Fa- 
thers are opposed to your doctrines. I pass on to 
your citations from St. Augustine, which are equally 
apposite for my purpose. The first is as follows : 



16 



LETTER IV. 



" It is not enough that the sinner change his 
" ways, and depart from his evil works, unless by 
" penitential sorrow, by humble tears, by the sacri- 
" fice of a contrite heart, and by alms-deeds, he 
" make satisfaction to God for what he has com- 
« mitted? (p. 50.) 

Here is not a single word of Satisfaction as remit- 
ting only the temporal penalties of sin. The peni- 
tential works here recommended as necessary, were 
for the purpose of obtaining pardon of " what the 
" sinner has committed," i. e. of his sin, his whole 
sin, guilt as well as punishment, eternal as well as 
temporal punishment. 

" In the following words we have our doctrine 
" clearly laid down, that God, after he has par- 
" doned sin, still punishes it in his justice. * Wash 
" me from my sin/ said David. — Implore mercy, 
" but lose not sight of justice. In his mercy God 
" pardons sin : he punishes it in his justice. But 
" what ? Dost thou seek for mercy, and shall sin 
" remain unpunished ? Let David, let other sinners 
" answer ; let them answer with David, that with 
" him they may find mercy, and say, ' Lord, my sin 
" shall not remain unpunished : I know his justice, 
" whose mercy I seek. It shall not remain un- 
" punished : but that thou mayest not punish it, 
" I myself will.' Is not this precisely, word for 
" word, the Catholic doctrine at this time ?" 
(p. 50.) 

Undoubtedly, Sir, it is the Catholic doctrine, but 



LETTER IV. 



17 



it is not the Romish. St. Augustine is not speaking 
of 'pardoned sin. He does not recommend punish- 
ments for pardoned sin. He warns sinners not to 
depend on the mercy of God for the pardon of their 
sins, while His justice requires their punishment ; 
and in order to avert the latter— the full punishment 
of sin, not merely its temporal punishment, — he 
advises them to punish themselves by penitential 
works. These works were intended to procure the 
pardon of sin, not to procure the remission of the 
temporal penalties of sin already pardoned. There- 
fore St. Augustine subverts your doctrine. 

Such, Sir, are your citations from the Fathers ! 
Such is the result of your appeal to Catholic 
tradition ! You will presently find that Tradition 
is stored with arguments against your doctrine. 
The only embarrassment indeed is to know what to 
select from the vast and multitudinous body of 
evidence which may be brought to bear against 
you. 



Having thus examined and proved the inconclusive- 
ness of all your arguments in favour of the Romish 
doctrine of Satisfaction, I proceed to establish the 
Catholic doctrine on this subject, taught by Scrip- 
ture, and received by the Catholic Fathers, the 
Church of England, and the Reformation, and even 
admitted by the Council of Trent, and by some of 
your own most eminent divines. 

B 



18 



LETTER IV. 



The position then which I shall maintain against 
you is, that " penitential works, such as fasting, 
" almsgiving, weeping, and works of piety, are, 
" together with contrition and confession to God, 
" means of obtaining the remission of sin, and not 
" merely the remission of its temporal penalties." 

It is not meant, that every sort of penitential 
work is requisite in every case of repentance, but 
in general, that some fruits or works of repentance 
are always parts of true repentance. 

The reason for which such works are expected 
from him who desires to return into the favour of 
God is, because Repentance, unaccompanied by any 
fruits of a changed mind, would be dead and un- 
profitable. Our Lord himself lays it down as a 
principle, " Ye shall know them by their fruits. 
" Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of 
" thistles ? Even so every good tree bringeth forth 
" good fruit, but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil 
" fruit." Matt. vii. 16. If Repentance then brings 
forth no fruits of repentance, no signs of contrition, 
of humiliation, of charity towards God and man ; it 
is not a genuine repentance. The Apostle teaches 
us to judge of the reality of Faith by its fruits : 
" Faith without works is dead." James ii. 20. And 
so likewise is Repentance, without its works, dead ; 
for what is Repentance, but Faith mourning over 
sin, and stimulated by love to newness of life ? 

Repentance then, without works of repentance, 
or external signs of a changed heart, (which the 



LETTER IV. 



19 



Fathers often call Satisfactions %) is a dead and 
unprofitable repentance, and does not procure the 
remission of sins. I speak here of the ordinary 
course of God's dealings with man ; for as I do not 
deny, that God has in some cases saved believers 
without the actual performance of good works ; so 
there is no difficulty in supposing that He also re- 
serves the power of saving penitents (in some pecu- 
liar cases) without works of penitence. But these are 
special exceptions from the ordinary course of his 
government. 

The doctrine which I have just stated, is in 
accordance with that of the Church of England, 
as will appear by the following extracts from the 
Homilies. 

" When the whole multitude of men, women, 
" and children, in a township or city, yea through 
" a whole country, do fast, it is called a public fast. 
" Such was that fast which the whole multitude of 

& When the Fathers speak of " Satisfactions" and of" satis- 
fying God," they did not mean that man can pay the debt which 
is due for his sin } and which the merits of Christ alone can 
discharge : their meaning was, that man may, through Divine 
grace, do works expressive of contrition, and thus tending to 
propitiate God's favour. We still retain in some degree the 
ancient meaning of the term, when we say, that we are 
satisfied with such a person," i. e. contented at his conduct. 
" Satisfaction" also was often used to express the Canonical 
penance, the right performance of which was supposed to 
restore the penitent to the Divine favour. Daliaeus, de Poenis, 
1. vii. c. 4. furnishes many examples. 

B 2 



20 



LETTER IV. 



" the children of Israel were commanded to keep the 
" tenth day of the seventh month, because Almighty 
" God appointed that day to be a cleansing day, 
" a day of atonement, a time of reconciliation, sl 
" day wherein the people were cleansed from their 
" sins. The order and manner how it was done is 
" written in the sixteenth and twenty-third chapter 
" of Leviticus. That day the people did lament, 
(e mourn, weep, and bewail their former sins. And 
" whosoever upon that day did not humble his soul, 
" bewail his sins, as is said, abstaining from all 
i( bodily food, until the evening, ' that soul/ saith 
" Almighty God, ' should be destroyed from among 
" his people' .... Upon the ordinance of the general 
" fast, good men took occasion to appoint to them- 
" selves private fasts, at such times as they did 
" either earnestly lament their sinful lives, or did 
" addict themselves to more fervent prayer, that it 
" might please God to turn his wrath from them, 
" when either they were admonished and brought 
" to the consideration thereof by the preaching of the 
" Prophets, or otherwise when they saw present 
" danger hang over their heads. This sorrow- 
" fulness of heart joined with fasting, they uttered 
" sometimes by their outward behaviour and gesture 
" of body, putting on sackcloth, sprinkling them- 
" selves with ashes and dust, and sitting or lying 
" upon the earth. 

" For when good men feel in themselves the 
" heavy burden of sin, see damnation to be the 



LETTER IV. 



21 



<e reward of it, and behold with the eye of their 
" mind the horror of hell, they tremble, they 
" quake, and are inwardly touched with sorrow- 
" fulness of heart for their offences, and cannot but 
" accuse themselves, and open this their grief unto 
" Almighty God, and call unto him for mercy. 
" This being done seriously, their mind is so occu- 
" pied, partly with sorrow and heaviness, partly 
" with an earnest desire to be delivered from this 
" danger of hell and damnation, that all desire of 
(t meat and drink is laid apart, and loathsomeness 
" of all worldly things and pleasures cometh in 
" place ; so that nothing then liketh them more, 
" than to weep, to lament, to mourn, and both with 
" words and behaviour of body, to shew themselves 
" weary of this life. Thus did David fast when he 
" made intercession to Almighty God for the child's 
" life. . . . King Ahab fasted after this sort, when 
" it repented him of murdering of Naboth, bewailing 
" his own sinful doings. Such was the Ninevites' 
" fast, brought to repentance by Jonas's preaching. 
" When forty thousand of the Israelites were slain 
" in battle against the Benjamites, the Scripture 
" saith, ' All the children of Israel, and the whole 
" multitude of the people, went to Bethel, and sat 
" there weeping before the Lord, and fasted all 
" that day till night.' So did Daniel, Esther, 
" Nehemiah, and many others in the Old Testa- 
" ment, fast f ." 

f Sermon of Fasting, Part I. 



22 



LETTER IV. 



" It is our part to rend our hearts and not our 
" garments, as we are advertised by the Prophet 
" Joel; that is, our sorrow and mourning must be 
" inward in the heart, and not in outward shew 
" only." .... Amongst the ends of fasting the fol- 
lowing is mentioned: "That our fast be a testimony 
" and witness with us before God, of our humble 
" submission to his high Majesty, when we confess 
" and acknowledge our sins unto him, and are 
" inwardly touched with sorrowfulness of heart, 
" bewailing the same in the affliction of our bodies" 
(Ibid.) 

In allusion to the case of the people of Nineveh 
the Homily says, 46 And upon this their hearty 
44 repentance, thus declared outwardly with fasting, 
44 renting of their clothes, putting on sackcloth, 
44 and sprinkling themselves with dust and ashes, 
il the Scripture saith, ' God saw their works, that 
44 they turned from their evil ways ; and God 
44 repented of the evil, &c.-'" 

Thus far we have seen fasting and mortifications 
considered as parts of true Repentance. We now 
come to almsgiving. 

44 4 Give alms/ saith he (our Lord), ( and behold 
44 all things are clean unto you.' He teacheth 
" them, that to be merciful and charitable in help- 
44 ing the poor, is the means to keep the soul pure 
44 and clean in the sight of God. We are taught 
44 therefore by this, that merciful alms-dealing is 

s Sermon of Fasting, Part II. 



LETTER IV. 



23 



" profitable to purge the soul from the infection 
" and filthy spots of sin. The same lesson doth 
" the Holy Ghost also teach in sundry places of 
" the Scripture, saying, 1 Mercifulness and alms- 
" giving purgeth from all sins, and delivereth 
" from death, and sufFereth not the soul to come 
" into darkness.' A great confidence may they 
" have before the high God that shew mercy and 
" compassion to them that are afflicted. The wise 
14 preacher, the Son of Sirach, confirmeth the same, 
" when he saith, ' that as water quencheth burn- 
" ing fire, even so mercy and alms resisteth and 

" reconcileth sins.' Wherefore that holy 

44 Father Cyprian taketh good occasion to exhort 
" earnestly ... to relieve the needy and help 
" the afflicted, by the which we may purge our 
" sins and heal our wounded souls h ." 

In the Homily which treats particularly of Re- 
pentance, it is stated, that God requires in real 
penitents not only to forsake their sins, but to give 
their hearts, souls, and bodies to the service of 
God. " And because that we are letted by the 
" natural corruption of our own flesh, and the 
44 wicked affections of the same, he doth bid us also 
" return with fasting .... whereunto he doth add, 
" weeping and mourning, which do contain an out- 
" ward profession of repentance, which is very 
ee needful and necessary'." 

h Sermon of Alms-deeds, Part II. 
1 Sermon of Repentance, Part I. 



24 



LETTER IV. 



" If we will have the wrath of God pacified, we 
" must in no wise dissemble, but turn unto him 
" again with a true and sound repentance, which 
" may be known and declared by good fruits, as by 
" most sure and infallible signs thereof. They that 
" do from the bottom of their hearts acknowledge 
" their sins, and are unfeignedly sorry for their 

" offences will from henceforwards with all 

" diligence give themselves to innocency, pureness 
" of life, and true godliness. We have the Nine- 
" vites for our example. . . . . But above all other, 
" the history of Zaccheus is most notable : for 
" being come unto our Saviour Jesus Christ, he 
" did say, ' Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I 
" give to the poor; and if I have defrauded any 
" man, or taken aught away by extortion or fraud, 
" I do restore him fourfold k . 3 " 

The same doctrine was taught by the Confession 
of Augsburgh 1 , and by the Apology of the Confession 
in the following terms, " Although we think that 
" Repentance ought to produce good fruits on account 
" of the glory and the command of God, and good 
"fruits are commanded by God, such as real fasting, 
" real prayer, real alms, 8fc.; yet we no where find 
" in holy Scripture that eternal punishments are 
" not remitted except on account of the punish- 

k Part II. 

1 Deinde sequi debent opera, quae sunt fructus po3nitentia?= 
Conf. August, c. xii, 



LETTER IV. 



25 



ment of purgatory or canonical satisfactions'", 
" &c." So that fasting, prayers, and alms, are 
here admitted to be fruits, signs, or points of real 
repentance. 

In these various passages we may observe, that 
the penitential works of fasting, alms-giving, and 
prayer, are all regarded as parts of true repentance, 
as fruits which testify its reality, and as conducive 
directly to the remission of sin. This is the doctrine 
which I am about to maintain against you. 

I. From Scripture. 

All the passages which you and other Romish 
theologians have cited in support of your doctrine 
of Satisfactions, go directly to prove, that such 
penitential works are means of obtaining remission 
of the whole sin, (culpa and poena). 

" Turn ye even to me with all your heart, and 
" with fasting, and with weeping, and with mourn- 
" ing : and turn unto the Lord your God, for he 
" is gracious and merciful, slow to anger,, and of 
" great kindness, and repenteth him of the evil." 
(Joel ii. 12.) This was obviously designed for the 
purpose of obtaining remission of sin. 

" God saw their works that they turned from 
" their evil ways ; and God repented of the evil 

,n Quanquam igitur sentimus, quod pcenitentia debeat bonos 
fructus parere propter gloriam et mandatum Dei, et boni 
fructus habent mandata Del, vera jejunia, verse orationes., verae 
eleemosynae, &c. Apol. Conf. August, vi. (De Confessione et 
Satisfactione.) See also the Confessio Helvetica, cap. xiv, 



26 



LETTER IV. 



" that he had said he would do unto them ; and 
" he did it not." (Jonah iii. 10.) That is, he for- 
gave their sin, not|merely its temporal penalties. 

44 Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust 
44 and ashes." (Job xlii. 6.) Job did then peniten- 
tial works to obtain pardon of his sin, (see ch. xl. 
xli.); not of its temporal penalties alone. 

" If the mighty works which were done in you 
" had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would 
" have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. " 
(Matt. xi. 21.) In these words our Saviour recog- 
nises external works of repentance, as a part of 
true repentance, and therefore as conducive to the 
remission of sin, not of its temporal penalties. 

44 O generation of vipers, who hath warned you 
" to flee from the wrath to come. Bring forth 
" therefore fruits meet for repentance." (Matt. iii. 
7.) In this case, 44 fruits of repentance" are men- 
tioned as the means of escaping 11 the wrath to 
44 come," that is, of obtaining remission of the guilt 
and eternal punishment of sin. 

" I keep under my body and bring it into sub- 
44 jection ; lest that by any means, when I have 
44 preached to others, I myself should be a cast- 
41 away." (1 Cor. ix. 27.) This passage obviously 
does not speak of Satisfactions for sins, but of 
mortification of the senses and self-denial, with 
a view to prevent the occurrence of sin. But 
if it did relate to Satisfactions, it would only prove 
that they are necessary to the remission of the 



LETTER IV. 



27 



guilt of sin : " Lest I myself should be a cast- 
" away." 

" Wherefore O king, let my counsel be ac- 
" ceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by 
" righteousness, and thine iniquities by shewing 
" mercy to the poor ; if it may be a lengthening 
" of thy tranquillity." (Daniel iv. 27.) " By 
" mercy and truth iniquity is purged ." (Prov. xvi. 
6.) ft Aims do deliver from death, and suffereth 
" not to come into darkness." (Tobias iv. 11.) 
" Give alms of such things as ye have, and behold 
" all things are clean unto you." (Luke xi. 41.) 

In these passages, penitential works are spoken 
of as means of obtaining the remission of sins, not 
merely the temporal penalties of remitted sin. Your 
doctrine of Satisfactions is therefore not Catholic; 
it is not the doctrine of the word of God. 

II. I shall now prove from Catholic Tradition, 
that your view is altogether erroneous. It is the 
doctrine of all the Fathers, that penitential works, 
such as fasting, weeping, alms-giving, and morti- 
fications, are conducive to the remission of the 
whole sinj i. e. both the guilt and the punishment 
of sin. And here I mean to avail myself of the 
proofs collected by your own writers to establish 
your doctrine of Satisfaction, all of which directly 
refute your error, and establish the truth for which 
I am contending. In citing the following passages 
from the " Faith of Catholics," by the popish 



28 



LETTER IV. 



priests Berington and Kirk", I am far from pledg- 
ing myself to their accuracy ; but they will be 
quite sufficient in arguing with you, since you 
acknowledge your own obligations to the work 
in question , which in fact furnishes all your 
writers with their whole stock of citations from 
the Fathers. 

Tertullian, A.D. 200. Having spoken of the 
public confession of sin before the Church, he thus 
proceeds, " I admit it is hard to make this con- 
" fession ; but suffering is the consequence of sin. 
" This suffering ends, and spiritual health begins, 
" when penance has been performed. But it may 
" be that besides the shame of confession, the 
" severe discipline of penance (some acts of which 
" he enumerates) is likewise feared." . . . ** Should 
" any one enquire why you are thus engaged ? 
" say : I have sinned against God, and am in 
" danger of perishing everlastingly : wherefore, that 
" I may obtain forgiveness, I thus punish myself ." 
Can any words be more decisively opposed to your 
doctrine than these? You believe that penances 
do not remit sin or its everlasting punishment. 

n Faith of Catholics, &c. London, 1830. 

° " The useful compilation of Messrs. Kirk and Berington, 
from which I have in general drawn my quotations of the 
Fathers." Wiseman's Lectures, vol. i. p. ix. 

p Tertullian, De Pcenitentia, c. x, xi. 



LETTER IV. 



29 



You hold that they only remit the temporal 
penalties of forgiven sin. 

St. Cyprian, A. D. 250. " Let us turn with 
" our whole mind to the Lord, and, expressing our 
" repentance with true sorrow, implore his mercy, 
" Before him let the soul bow down : to him let 
" our sorrow make satisfaction: on him let all 
" our hope rest. By fasting, by tears, and by 
" moaning, let us appease, as he himself admo- 
" nishes, his indignation^ 

Council of Nice, A. D. 325. "In all cases 
" the disposition and character of repentance must 
" be considered. For they who by fear,, by tears, 
" by patience, and by good works, manifest a 
" sincere conversion, when they shall have passed 
11 over a certain time, and begun to communicate 
" in prayer with the faithful, to these the bishop 
" may shew more indulgence 1 ";" (i. e. by shorten- 
ing the time of their penance, and admitting them 
at an early period to absolution.) Observe in this 
case, that penitential works are necessary to mani- 
fest a sincere conversion, and therefore that sin 
cannot be remitted without them. 

St. Pacianus, A. D. 370. " Be not slow in 
" having recourse to the means of salvation: lower 
" the mind by grief : clothe the body in sackcloth ; 
" strew ashes on the head ; fast ; implore the 

a Cyprian. De Lapsis, p. 191. 
r Can. xii. Cone. Gen. t. ii. p. 35. 



30 



LETTER IV. 



" prayers of the faithful. As you spare not your- 
" selves, God will spare you. He is gentle, and 
" patient, and full of mercy, and will reverse his 
<c sentence. I promise: T am surety for you; if 
" you return by true satisfaction to your Father, 
" going astray no more, adding nothing to your 
" former sins, uttering the humble and plaintive 
" words, Father, we have sinned before thee, we 
" are not worthy to be called thy sons, he will 
" again receive you, who says, I will not tine death of 
" the sinner*" Satisfaction then is a mean of 
obtaining remission of sins, and of avoiding eternal 
death. 

St. Ambrose, A. D. 390. " Let the Church 
" weep for thee, and by her tears wash away thy 
u sin: may Christ see thee weeping, that he may 
" say, Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall 
" be comforted .... Therefore did he pardon Peter, 
" because he wept bitterly. And if thou weep in 
" like manner, Christ will look on thee, and thy sin 
" will be cancelled 1 ." 

St. Augustine, A. D. 400. " To no one has he 
" (God) granted the liberty of sinning, although in 
" mercy he may forgive past sins if due satisfaction 
" be not neglected u . 

St. Leo, A. D. 450. " As for those Christians, 

s Paraen. ad Poeriit. Bibl. Patr. iv. 317. 
1 De Poenit. 1. ii. c. x. 
u Enchirid. c. lxx. 



LETT Ell IV. 



31 



" who are said to have polluted themselves by food 
" offered to idols, my answer is, that they be puri- 
" fied by penitential satisfactions, which should be 
" measured rather by the sorrow of the heart, than 
" by the length of the time x . " 

Such, Sir, are the passages which your writers 
have culled from Antiquity, in proof that penitential 
works or satisfactions only remit the temporal 
punishment of sin ; and I now ask you to produce, 
if you can, one single passage from any Christian 
writer for a thousand years after Christ, in which 
your doctrine is maintained, All the " dicta" of 
the Fathers which you have hitherto adduced, are 
condemnatory of your doctrine. Those Fathers 
exclaimed against the impiety of imagining, that 
sin can be remitted without any fruits of repentance, 
when such a dogma was first advanced. Hear the 
language of St. Cyprian, when some sinners had 
been admitted to absolution without any previous 
works of satisfaction. 

" A new sort of destruction hath arisen, beloved 
" brethren ; and as if the storm of persecution had 
" raged but a little, a deceitful evil, a gentle ruin, 
" under the name of mercy, has been accumulated 
" on us. Contrary to the firmness of the Gospel, 
" contrary to that of our Lord towards the Law 
u of God, some persons rashly extend communion 
" to heedless men ; a vain and false peace, perilous 
" to those who give, and unavailing to those who 
* Ep. cxxix. al. lxxix. ad^Nicet. Aquil. 



32 



LETTER IV. 



" receive. They require no patience in recovering, 
" no real medicine by satisfaction. Repentance is 
" driven from their bosoms, the memory of the 
" most grievous and extreme sin is removed. . . 
" Before sins are expiated ; before confession of the 
" crime is made ; before conscience is cleansed by 
ec the sacrifice and the absolution of the priest ; 
<l before the offence of an indignant and threatening 
" God is appeased, they suppose that there is peace; 
" which indeed they vaunt with deceitful words. . . . 
" This is another persecution, another temptation, 
" by which the subtle Enemy secretly assails and 
" destroys the lapsed, that their lamentation may 
" cease, grief be silent, the memory of sin vanish, 
" the groaning of hearts be repressed, the weeping 
" of eyes be stopped, and the grievously offended 
" God be not deprecated by a long and full repent- 
" ahce y ." 

The whole Treatise from which the above pas- 
sages are taken is sufficient to shew, that works of 
repentance were considered necessary for the pardon 
of sin; that it was unlawful to admit penitents to 
absolution without the previous performance of such 
works ; and that there was not the remotest idea in 
those ages, that they remitted the temporal penalties 
due to pardoned sin. 

But, Sir, it is not merely the whole body of 
ancient catholic tradition which is opposed to your 



y Cyprianus, De Lapsis. 



LETTER IV. 



33 



doctrine of Satisfactions ; I have to produce evidence 
from a quarter which you little expect, even from 
the Council of Trent itself. 

It is the doctrine of the Council of Trent, that 
Satisfaction is necessary for the remission of sins — 
necessary to a real repentance. Hear its words : 
" The acts of the penitent himself, that is, Contri- 
" tion, Confession, and Satisfaction, are as it were 
" the matter of this sacrament ; which, inasmuch as 
" they are required by the Divine institution to the 
" completeness of the sacrament, and the full and 
" perfect remission of sins, are for this reason called 
"parts of repentance*." Thus, you see, Satisfaction 
is requisite to the remission of sin itself — not merely 
to the remission of the temporal penalties of sin 
already remitted. In another place the Council 
teaches the same doctrine ; " It is agreeable to 
" the Divine goodness that our sins should not be 
"forgiven without Satisfaction, 3 est taking occasion 
" therefrom, we should think lightly of them, &c. a " 
In fine, we have the following canon, " If any one 
" deny, that in order to the full and perfect remis- 
" sion of sins, three acts are requisite in the penitent, 
" (constituting as it were the matter of the sacra- 
" ment of Penitence,) that is to say, Contrition, 
" Confession, and Satisfaction, which are called the 
" three parts of Repentance. . . . Let him be Ana- 

1 Sessio xiv. cap. iii. 
* lb. c. viii. 

C 



34 



LETTER IV. 



" thema b J" Here, Sir, your doctrine is anathema- 
tized by the Council of Trent I you maintain that 
sin is pardoned, remitted, forgiven, by Confession 
and Absolution; and that Satisfaction, which comes 
afterwards, only remits its temporal penalties. So 
that you are in this dilemma. If sin is not perfectly 
forgiven by Confession and Absolution as you 
believe it to be, and if Satisfaction remits more than 
temporal penalties, then your whole doctrine of 
Satisfactions is based on a false foundation ; but 
if sin is perfectly forgiven without Satisfaction, you 
must maintain that the Council of Trent is in 
error. Either alternative is quite sufficient for 
me. 

In fact, Sir, why do you, notwithstanding the 
opinions generally current in your communion, 
always exact from penitents in Confession an under- 
taking to do some works of Satisfaction— to per- 
form some penance or other ? You would think it un- 
lawful to give Absolution without having previously 
imposed some such penances, and you believe that 
the penitent must have the intention of executing 

" Si quis negaverit, ad integram et perfectam peccatorum 
remissionem requiri tres actus in poenitente, quasi materiam 
Sacramenli pcenitentiae, videlicet, Contrition em, Confessionem, 
et Satisfactionem, quae tres pcenitentiae partes dicuntur : aut 
dixerit, duas tantiim esse pcenitentia? partes, terrores scilicet in- 
cusscs conscientiae, agnito peccato, et fidem conceptam ex 
Evangelio vel absolutione, qua credit quis sibi per Christum 
remissa peccata ; anathema sit. Sess. xiv. can. 4. 



LETTER IV. 



35 



that penance, in order to obtain remission of his 
sins by Absolution. What is this after ail, but a 
tacit confession, that Satisfaction is in some way 
essential to the full effect of the sacrament of 
Penance — that it is essential to the remission of 
sin P You accept indeed a quasi satisfaction, an 
intention of doing penance, where the Scriptures 
and Catholic Tradition require a real satisfaction ; 
but still, you do require a sort of virtual satisfac- 
tion in order to the remission of sin. So that 
your own practice condemns your doctrine of 
Satisfaction. 

But your doctrine of Satisfaction is not only 
condemned by Scripture, by Tradition, by the 
Council of Trent, and by your own practice : it is 
actually rejected by some of your own theologians. 
Morinus, in his celebrated w T ork on Penance, re- 
marks, that the following " axiom was introduced 
66 into the minds of all Christians by the Fathers, 
" 6 That Satisfactions imposed by the Church and 
" strenuously performed, not only satisfied and 
<( expunged temporal punishments, but eternal; that 
" they drew down the mercy of God on sinners, 
" and obtained pardon of their crimes /" Mori- 

c Alterum disciplinae penitentialis fundamentiira, quod nobis 
hujus libri initio explicandum proposuimus, hoc est axioma 
Christianorum omnium animis a Patribus insinuatum, Satis- 
factiones ab Ecclesia impositas diligenter et strenue peractas 
non tantum poena? temporaries sed etiam seternae satisfactorias 
esse, et expunctrices, animara purgare et emaculare, Dei miserfc 



36 



LETTER IV. 



nus observes, that it was the hope of obtaining 
remission of sins, that induced penitents in those 
ages to undergo such long and severe penances ; 
and that this doctrine formed the basis of all the 
exhortations of the Fathers to repentance. He 
cites Maldonatus, one of your most eminent Jesuits, 
as saying, " I do not doubt that all the ancient 
" Authors acknowledged that Satisfaction was for 
" the guilt (culpa). For they did not suppose that 
" God remitted the guilt of sins, before the penitent 
" had appeased Him by external penances : nor did 
" the priests believe that they could give Absolu- 
" tion to the penitent before, as interpreters of the 
" Divine will, they had seen the sinner perform 
" such a penance, that it was credible that God 
" was already reconciled to him''." Morinus after- 
wards refers to Estius and Sylvius, as making the 
same admissions ; and to Lenseeus, an eminent 
theologian of Louvain, whose work was approved 
by that University. The latter, according to Mori- 

cordiam in peccatores allicere, et scelerum veniam ab eo 
impetrare.' Morinus, De discipl. Sacramenti Pcenitentiae, lib. 
iii. c. xi. p. 159- Ed. Bruxellis 1685. 

d Non dubito, inquit Joannes Maldonatus, quin omnes 
veteres Authores satisfaction em agnoverint pro culpa. Nam 
non putabant Deum culpam remittere peccatorum, priusquam 
externis pcenitentiis Deum placassent: Neque sacerdotes puta- 
bant dare posse pcenitenti Absolutionem, priusquam, quasi 
interpretes Divinae voluntatis, viderent earn poenitentiam cgisse 
peccatorem, ut credibile esset Deum jam illi esse placatum. 
Morinus, ibid. 



LETTER IV. 



37 



nus, maintained, that Satisfactions were imposed, 
" to appease the anger of an indignant God, and 
" that a complete abolition of sins might, in that 
" manner, be obtained;" and that by Satisfactions, 
" a man is relieved, cleansed, excused, absolved ; a 
" remedy applied for the recovery of salvation; 
" eternal punishments expunged; the fire of Hell 
" extinguished* " The same author proves his 
doctrine at great length from the Fathers. Morinus 
also quotes Albaspinseus, the learned bishop of 
Orleans, as maintaining that Satisfactions remit sin; 
a position which he establishes in many ways. 

In fine, Morinus himself, having spoken of those 
theologians whose doctrines lead to the conclusion, 
that " all satisfaction relates only to temporal punish- 
" ments" says, " Whether this opinion can agree 
" with the most undeniable discipline of the an- 
" cients, let others judge." 

Thus you see, that what you adduce as <£ the 
" Catholic doctrine of Satisfaction," is so far from 
being so, that it has not even been approved by all 
your own theologians. I admit indeed, that it is 
now universally received amongst you, however incon- 

e Veriim eo proprie relatas fuisse (satisfactiones) ut Deo 
satisfieret, ejusque indignantis ira placaretur, plenaque ista 
ratione percipi posset abolitio peccatorum .... Per hoc idcirco 
studium satisfactionis hominem relevari, mundari, excusari, 
absolvi, ad salutem recuperandam remedium adhiberi, aeterna 
supplicia expungi, gehennse ignem extingui," &c. Morinus, 
ibid. 



38 



LETTER IV. 



sistent it be with Catholic antiquity, and with the 
Council of Trent. All your modern approved 
writers agree, that Satisfaction obtains only the 
remission of temporal punishments; the sin itself 
having been previously remitted. This is the doc- 
trine which you yourself maintain, as I have shewn 
at the beginning of this Letter. 

Having now completed the refutation of your 
doctrine of Satisfaction, and having established the 
Catholic doctrine in opposition to it, T shall submit 
to your consideration certain conclusions which 
follow from a review of the whole discussion. 

I. In my former Letter it was proved, that your 
doctrine of Satisfactions or Penances necessarily 
leads to the conclusion, that after sin has been 
pardoned, God's anger and wrath still remain to 
be appeased, and consequently that the remission 
of sin is merely nominal. 

II. It was also proved, that, according to your 
doctrine, God is actuated by contradictory dis- 
positions towards the justified ; that he is at once 
satisfied and dissatisfied, pleased and displeased ; 
that he loves and hates the same persons at the 
same moment. 

III. It was further proved, that, according to 
your doctrine, a Christian is bound to pass his 
whole life in enduring self-inflicted torments and 
laborious works, under an uncertain hope of 
appeasing the wrath of God. 



LETTER IV. 



39 



IV. It was also shewn, that you are not satisfied 
with imposing this grievous burden on Christians, 
but that you teach them to consider themselves 
alienated from God, exposed to his wrath, venge- 
ance, and hatred, during their whole lives, and 
even at the hour of death. 

V. It has been shewn, that your doctrine 
renders it impossible for those who receive it, ever 
perfectly to love God. 

VI. In the present Letter, I have proved that 
your doctrine of Satisfaction is without any proof 
from Scripture or Tradition. Consequently it 
cannot be Catholic. 

VII. It has been also proved, that Scripture, 
Tradition, the Council of Trent, and some of your 
own most eminent Divines, concur in establishing 
the truth taught by the Church of England, that 
penitential works are a part of true Repentance, 
and as such, remit sin both as to its guilt and its 
punishment [culpa and poena). Consequently your 
doctrine of Satisfaction, which asserts that peni- 
tential works are only useful for the remission of 
temporal penalties, is directly erroneous, and ap- 
proximates to heresy. 

VIII. Scripture and Catholic Tradition teach, 
that remission of sins is not obtained without 
penitential works. Therefore you are in error in 
pronouncing the Absolution of sins, without any 
previous fruits of repentance ; and your Absolu- 
tions are, generally speaking, invalid. 



40 



LETTER IV. 



IX. Scripture and Tradition teach, that peni- 
tential works are necessary to obtain pardon of 
sin ; but all your modern divines maintain, that 
they are not an essential part of the Sacrament of 
Penitence f , and on this principle give Absolution 
before Satisfaction. Therefore your received doc- 
trine is opposed to the word of God. 

X. These errors are universally received amongst 
you. They are taught by all your theologians in 
modern times, and are believed by all your people. 
From which we learn, that some errors at least are 
received by all members of the Roman Obedience ; 
and if some errors are universally received amongst 
you, there may be many more. You may be in 
error on all the points in which you differ from 
the Catholic and Apostolic Churches established 
amongst us. 

And is it then for you and your co-religionists to 
assume the office of dictating to us what we are to 
believe ? Can those who are in such gross errors 

f Satisfaction seu pcenitentia a Confessario data,, est necessaria 

necessitate non sacramenti sed praecepti est pars sacra- 

menti non essentialis, sed integralis tantum. Ligorio, Theol. 
Mor. t. vi. p. 122. Communis theologorum sententia post 
Concilium Tridentinum assignat tres actus pcenitentis, nempe 
contritionem, confessionem, et satisfactionem pro materia 
proxima Sacramenti Pcenitentia? ; duos quidem priores pro 
materia essentiali; tertium verb, nempe satisfactionem, pro 
materia integrante. Tournely, De Pcenit. t. i. p. J 08. Sine 
ilia (satisfaction) valet absolutio data pcenitenti contrito et 
confesso, ut ostendemus suo loco inferius. Ib. p. 118. 



LETTER IV. 



41 



themselves be fit monitors to others? Can those 
who quote passages from the Scriptures and the 
Fathers in favour of doctrines which they utterly 
subvert, be qualified either by learning or by 
intelligence to guide our opinions ? Where is that 
boasted infallibility of received doctrines amongst 
you ; when it has been shewn, that Scripture, 
Tradition, and the Council of Trent itself condemn 
your belief? Supposing that you could prove our 
Church in error on some points, (which however 
I utterly deny that you can do,) would there be 
any inducement to us to forsake the communion of 
our Church for the purpose of uniting ourselves to 
a community which is itself in error ? But when 
the error is on your side ; and when, by your own 
admission, Catholic principles may be maintained 
by those who are members of the Church of 
England ; when, in short, our Churches are es- 
sentially Catholic, and your own separation from 
our Catholic and Apostolic Churches is conse- 
quently without excuse ; how extreme would be 
the insanity, how desperate the wickedness, of that 
man, who should plunge his soul into eternal 
perdition, by forsaking the Communion of the 
Catholic Church in England, to unite himself to 
your corrupt and schismatical community ! 

I remain, Sir, 
Your obedient Servant, 

Oxford, May 11, 1841. WILLIAM PALMER, 



BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 



Just published, 

A LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. (calling himself Bishop of 
Melipotamus,) containing REMARKS on his LETTER to Mr. 
NEWMAN. (Second Edition.) Price \s. 

A SECOND LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. on the FOUNDATION 
of the ROMISH DOCTRINES of SATISFACTION, INDULG- 
ENCES, PURGATORY, and SUFFRAGES for the DEAD. 
Price \s. 

A THIRD LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. on the ROMISH 
DOCTRINE of SATISFACTIONS. Price \s. 



Preparing for Publication, 

A FIFTH LETTER to N. WISEMAN, D.D. in REPLY to his 
REMARKS on LETTER I ; with additional proofs of the IDOL- 
ATRY and SUPERSTITION of ROMANISM. 

*** This Series of Letters will be continued. 



Lately published, 

BY THE SAME AUTHOR. 

The APOSTOLICAL JURISDICTION and SUCCESSION of the 
EPISCOPACY in the BRITISH CHURCHES vindicated against 
the Objections of Dr. WISEMAN in the DUBLIN REVIEW, 
Price 6s. 

* # * The above C07itains a reply to Tracts 18 and 19 of * ( the Tracts 
published under the Superintendence of the Catholic Institute of Great 
Britain." 



A 

FIFTH LETTER 

TO 

N. WISEMAN, D.D. 

CONTAINING 

A REPLY 

TO HIS 

REMARKS ON LETTER I. 

WITH ADDITIONAL PROOFS OF THE 

IDOLATRY AND SUPERSTITION OF ROMANISM 



BY TflE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A. 

OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD. 



OXFORD, 

JOHN HENRY PARKER ; 
J. G. P. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
1841. 



BAXTER, -PRINTER, OXFORD. 



A 

FIFTH LETTER, 



1. Introductory Remarks, 

Sir, 

When you thought it necessary to call publicly 
on a clergyman of the English Church for proofs 
of charges which he had made years before against 
the doctrines and practice of Romanists, and which 
had been just repeated without any peculiar 
reference to yourself, or any other circumstance 
which particularly obliged you at this time to make 
such a demand ; and when you availed yourself of 
this opportunity to present the doctrines of your 
Communion to the notice of the English public ; 
it does not seem to me that you have any reason 
to complain, if another clergyman uses the same 
liberty which you have yourself taken, and pro- 
ceeds with a discussion to which you have led the 
way. 

The question which formed the principal sub- 
ject of my first Letter was one, which most deeply 

a 2 



4 



LETTER V. 



and even vitally affects the religious character of 
Romanism. It was no less than this : Whether 
in the Church of Rome, created beings receive 
honours which are only due to God ; whether this 
idolatrous worship is sanctioned and encouraged by 
authority amongst you, and is allowed generally by 
the members of the Roman communion without 
any protests or expressions of dissent. 

In maintaining that such an idolatrous worship 
exists and is authorized amongst you ; it was, 
at the same time, most readily admitted, that every 
Romanist is not necessarily an idolater a ; because 
idolatry is only allowed and sanctioned in the 
Roman Church : it is not enjoined or imposed on all 
its members. This is a distinction which you are 
still unwilling to recognise, and by losing sight of 
it, you easily involve my statements in apparent 
contradiction t>. Could time be spared for the 
discussion, it might easily be shewn, that there 
is no contradiction in those statements. An intel- 
ligent reader will easily disentangle them for 

a Letter I. p. 6, 43. 

5 Wiseman, Remarks, p. 6, 10—13. I shall only observe, 
that you are mistaken in supposing that I admit " an immense 
aggregate of idolatrous Churches into a portion? with Christ's 
true Church." (p. 13.) To speak of the Roman as an idolatrous 
Church, would seem to imply that all its members must be 
idolaters, which I am not prepared to affirm. Bomanism, how- 
ever, i. e. the more -popular system of religion in the Roman 
Church, is superstitious and idolatrous. 



LETTER V. 



5 



himself,, by remembering that I have maintained, 
that the Roman Church is indeed deeply culpable 
and very corrupt in permitting Idolatry to exist 
within her pale ; and yet that, as she does not 
enjoin it, (either by the decrees of Councils or 
otherwise,) she is not actually apostate or cut off 
from Christ. In a word, she is still capable of 
Reformation. 

In connexion with this subject I must say, that 
I cannot see the justice of your " demand," (p. 8.) 
that the expressions of those who are in authority 
amongst you " be interpreted in accordance with 
" your formularies." It is not impossible, that men 
may hold what is inconsistent with the formularies 
of their Church ; and there is still less difficulty in 
supposing that their doctrines may go beyond the 
wording of those formularies, without being opposed 
to them. This is the case with Romanists. Their 
formularies do not (I believe) teach or enjoin 
Idolatry; and yet Idolatry is taught and practised. 
That is, Romanism is more corrupt than its own 
formularies. 

The object of your reference (p. 14, 15.) to the 
former prevalence of " the Bible alone" system in 
this country, and to the support given to the Bible 
Society by some of our Prelates, is to prove, that 
the " Bible alone" doctrine, as opposed to any 
Church authority, is as much sanctioned amongst 
us, as idolatrous worship is amongst Romanists. 
But you are surely aware, that this doctrine is 



6 



LETTER V. 



now, and has long been, openly condemned and 
resisted by the great body of the Clergy ; and we 
have no reason to suppose that the Prelates, 
(always, I believe, a minority of the Episcopal 
body,) who have supported the Bible Society, 
intended to approve any unsound principles, or 
to give their countenance to any thing but the 
circulation of the Bible without note or comment, 
which is, in itself, a perfectly unexceptionable and 
most laudable object. 

Your argument, however, in this case, concedes 
the validity of that by which I shewed, that 
Romanists are responsible for the idolatrous lan- 
guage and prayers employed by the Authorities, 
without any opposition or protest from the mem- 
bers of their Communion. And the whole pamphlet 
before me is a further admission of its correctness. 
You do not attempt to deny that the character of 
Romanism depends on the lawfulness of the ex- 
pressions which were adduced in my first Letter. 

I must pass over several minor points in the 
first and second sections of your " Remarks," the 
discussion of which would withdraw attention from 
the important features of this discussion. They 
may perhaps be noticed at the conclusion of this 
Letter. 

§.2. Romanism convicted of Idolatry by Dr. Wiseman's 
concessions. 

Let us now turn to the really serious part of the 



LETTER V. 



7 



question, and examine how far you have been able 
to meet the charge which was made against your 
system — that the blessed Virgin and the Saints 
receive amongst Romanists " honours which are 
" due only to the Trinity, and which interfere 
" with the sole prerogatives of the Deity/' 

Your Reply, Sir, has only confirmed the worst 
apprehensions that could have been formed as to 
the extent of the evils under which Religion is 
suffering amongst you. It has shewn that the 
corruptions which were pointed out are deeply 
rooted, and widely spread in your communion. 
Every expression and every practice to which 
I referred, however idolatrous and impious, has 
been studiously maintained and defended. Far 
from disclaiming responsibility for such language, 
or from protesting against it, you confidently main- 
tain its correctness in all points, and are prepared 
to go to still greater lengths than any of the writers 
whom I quoted ; for you cite in their justification, 
language which is still more offensive than that 
which was produced. This proceeding most fully 
establishes the truth of what was said in my first 
Letter; that " you (Romanists) content yourselves 
" with general disclaimers of superstition and idolatry, 
" but you will never venture to lay your finger on 
<( any specific case c ." No : so far is this from being 
the case, that the moment an attempt is made to 
point out the real and undeniable corruptions 
c Letter I. p. 19. 



8 



LETTER V. 



existing in your communion, they are eagerly 
defended and justified in their fullest extent. 

Your Reply has established another point, which 
is of great importance in our controversies with 
Romanists. It has shewn that we are not called 
on to enter into any discussion with you on the 
propriety of asking the Saints and Angels to " pray 
" for us." Such discussions may be put aside, until 
you disclaim and reject those far more objectionable 
and dangerous Invocations which invest the Saints 
with the attributes of Deity ; which reduce God 
to the same level with His creatures, or elevate 
creatures to an equality with God. The mere 
invocation of Saints to "pray for us" stands on 
different grounds, because it distinctly recognises 
the superiority of God. 

You have conceded then what I contended for in 
my first Letter, that Romanists are responsible for 
the expressions sanctioned by Authority, which 
were there produced. 

But you concede still more than this. I con- 
tended, that the blessed Virgin and the Saints 
receive in those authorized expressions, honours 
which are only due to the Deity ; that the at- 
tributes of the Deity are plainly and repeatedly 
ascribed to created beings. This you have not 
attempted to deny. You have not answered the 
arguments which were adduced to prove, that the 
very powers and attributes ascribed in those pas- 
sages to the Saints, belong, according to Revela- 



LETTER V. 



9 



tion, to God only. You have only adduced a 
series of precedents for such prayers from various 
writers. I have a right therefore to assume, that 
you cannot deny the validity of my proofs ; and 
thus my conclusion remains established ; that the 
Virgin Mary and the Saints receive amongst you 
honours which are due to God ; and that your 
prayers invest them with the attributes of Deity. 

Now, Sir, according to yourself, " Idolatry is 
44 the giving to man or to any thing created, that 
" homage, that adoration, and that worship which 
44 God hath reserved unto Himself V and you ac- 
knowledge, that " throughout God's word, the 
66 crime of idolatry is spoken of as the most heinous, 
44 the most odious, and the most detestable in his 
" eyes e ." Have I not a right then to claim you as 
a witness against the prayers which you have 
defended ? Have I not a right to produce your 
own confessions as amongst the strongest possible 
condemnations of what is so generally practised 
amongst Romanists, and practised without a word 
of warning, of censure, or of opposition ? 

Romanists allege, that all these acts of homage 
and adoration to the Virgin and the Saints cannot 
be in reality idolatrous ; — cannot trench on the 
worship due to the Creator ; because they believe 
that God is infinitely superior to the Saints ; and 

d Lectures on the principal doctrines and practices of the 
Catholic Church, vol. ii. p. 93. 
e Ibid. 



10 



LETTER V. 



hence they conclude, that He will regard all wor- 
ship of the Saints, however apparently idolatrous, 
as in reality consistent with, and subordinate to, 
that which is due to Himself. 

But how can you be certain of this ? How can 
you be assured that the Divine Justice of a "jealous 
" God f ," will so easily excuse actions which to all 
appearance despoil Him of his glory in the face of 
the world ? Can it be consistent with the will of 
God, that his professed disciples should commit 
even external idolatry ? Is it fitting that they 
should seem to the world idolaters — and that the 
Heathen should be able to adduce their example to 
justify themselves in worshipping more than one 
God ? Is it Christian to make use of forms which 
must, almost irresistibly, tempt the unlearned to 
commit idolatry in the worst sense ? Surely, Sir, 
if such addresses are, in their plain and obvious 
sense, idolatrous ; and if they inevitably lead to the 
grossest forms of idolatry, there can be no reason to 
suppose that God will pardon those who employ 
and sanction them, or those whose especial duty it 
is to watch against idolatry, and who yet utter 
no word of admonition or reproof to the people 
entrusted to their care. 

Is it right that Christians should offer honours to 
the Saints which are even apparently and externally 
idolatrous ? There cannot be any doubt of its im- 
propriety. Consider for a moment the object of 
f Exodus xx. 5. 



LETTER V. 



1 I 



all external worship addressed to God. We wor- 
ship God in order to glorify Him before men and 
angels, — in order to testify that He is, as we believe, 
All-powerful, All-wise, and All-merciful. It is, to 
shew forth to his glory, the inward convictions of 
our hearts. If then we divide that worship with 
others, w T e do not accomplish the objects of our 
worship. We do not so much raise others to an 
equality with God, as bring down God to a level 
with his creatures. If the external worship due to 
God be imparted also to creatures, God is not 
honoured : He is even insulted and offended. 

Consider the anger of God against Moses, when 
his language at the water of Meribah implied that 
he could bring water out of the rock by his own 
power. God said to Moses and Aaron, "because 
" ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the 
" children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this 
" congregation into the land which I have given 
" them g ." Consider the rebuke and the punish- 
ment administered to Sennacherib for his impious 
boasting, 44 I have digged and drunk strange 
waters, &c." 44 Hast thou not heard long ago," 
said the Lord, "how I have done it, and of ancient 
" times that I have formed it h ?" Think also of the 
awful instance of God's displeasure, when Herod 
did not refuse the divine honours which the people 
of Tyre and Sidon paid him. " The angel of the 



g Numbers xx. 12. 



2 Kings xix. 24, 25, &c. 



12 



LETTER V. 



44 Lord smote him, because he gave not God the 
" glory; and he was eaten of worms, and gave 
44 up the ghost 1 ." These instances, to which many 
others might be added, go to establish the con- 
clusion, that God will visit with his severest dis- 
pleasure those, who, in any way, attribute to crea- 
tures those powers, or offer to them that homage, 
which is due to the Creator. 

It is not merely our belief or our intention which 
God requires to be sound and pure, but our external 
profession of faith also, " for with the heart man 
44 believeth unto righteousness ; and with the 
44 mouth confession is made unto salvation 1 "." If 
therefore the external profession of our faith in 
prayer and worship be unsound ; if it ascribe divine 
power to creatures ; the mere inward persuasion of 
our hearts will not suffice for our salvation. If we 
are externally idolaters, we shall not be saved from 
punishment, by believing that there is but one 
God. 

If these principles be not adopted, you could not 
offer any opposition to the introduction of profes- 
sions of faith, which, I believe, would be scarcely 
acceptable even to Romanists. For if it be allow- 
able in prayer, which is a profession of faith, to 
offer the Virgin and the Saints the same homage, 
and ascribe to them the same attributes, as we do 
to God, there cannot be any objection to introduce 



Acts xi. 23, 



k Rom. x. 10. 



LETTER V. 



13 



them into a creed, which is only a profession of 
faith in a different form. Suppose then, that Gre- 
gory XVI. were to substitute a new profession 
instead of that of Pius IV. (which is a possible 
case) ; and that after the Nicene Creed the follow- 
ing passage were inserted : 

'* And I believe in the Virgin Mary, the ' only 
44 refuge 5 of sinners, by whom * the world is freed,' 
44 whose name is of ' salvation to the baptized.' I 
" acknowledge that from her ' celestial inspiration' 
" good counsels proceed. I believe that she can 
u do whatever she wills ; and I adore and worship 
14 her, with the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
44 Ghost, as my saviour, my deliverer, and my 
44 sovereign. I believe also in the Saints and 
44 Angels, in whom my whole confidence is placed. 
" I offer to them my heart and soul, and I worship 
" and glorify them, with the Father, the Son, the 
44 Holy Ghost, and the Virgin Mary." 

Now, Sir, there is nothing in this profession of 
faith which would be inconsistent with the prin- 
ciples of your Letter. It might be defended by 
exactly the same arguments which Romanists em- 
ploy to excuse the prayers which I quoted in my 
first Letter. It would be easy to say, that, after 
all, the belief of the Roman Church was quite 
sound ; that you rejected with horror the notion 
of idolatry ; and that you did not imagine, that 
the Virgin or the Saints could do any thing for you 
except by their prayers. On your principles no 



14 



LETTER V. 



opposition could be made to such a profession of 
faith. You could only object to it on the very 
principles on which we object to your actual lan- 
guage to the Virgin and Saints. You could only 
say, that such a profession would be, in its obvious 
meaning, idolatrous ; that it was calculated to cause 
the grossest idolatry; and that the external worship 
and the professions of Christians ought always to 
be in accordance with their faith. 

This is what we contend for. We contend that 
it can never be lawful for Christians to use an 
idolatrous external worship, and that there is no 
reason to believe that God will excuse such wor- 
ship, because faith is alleged to be sound. 

Let us suppose a petitioner, on entering the 
presence of his earthly Sovereign, to fall down 
before some fellow -subject ; to profess his allegiance 
to that subject ; to offer him all the honours due 
to the sovereign ; and to solicit from him favours 
which no subject can bestow. What would be the 
feelings of that earthly sovereign, thus dishonoured 
in his own presence ? Or even suppose the peti- 
tioner to address his homage equally at the same 
moment to the sovereign and one of his subjects. 
Suppose him to couple their names in his petition, 
and to express equal hope and confidence in the 
power of each ; and to solicit favours from both 
at once in the same form of words. Would not 
this be an act of disrespect to the sovereign ? 
Would it be regarded as any thing less than in- 



LETTER V. 



15 



sanity in the petitioner ? Would it be sufficient to 
say, " that there was no intention to place the 
" sovereign and his subject on the same level, or 
" to offer them an equal degree of honour ; but 
" that it was only meant to ask for the prayers and 
11 interest of the subject?" The reply would be, 
" Why then did not your conduct accord with 
" your intentions? Why did you not practically 
" make the distinctions which you acknowledge 
" theoretically ought to be made?" Transfer this 
example to the parallel case of your adoration of 
the Virgin and Saints, and it may suggest a salutary 
warning. 

§.3. Value of Dr. Wiseman's Defence. His quotations 
from spurious and apocryphal writings. 

I now come to your Defence of the expressions 
on which my first Letter commented. It consists 
in an appeal to Christian Antiquity, with a view 
to shew that language of the same kind had been 
employed by the early Fathers. Now, Sir, much 
as the testimony of Catholic Antiquity is to be 
valued, you must permit me to say, that we are not 
bound to approve of every expression which parti- 
cular writers may have employed in rhetorical 
compositions. Romanists have no scruple them- 
selves in exercising a reasonable criticism in such 
cases 1 ; and if therefore you had been able to 

1 See Melchior Canus, De locis Theologicis, 1. vii. c. iii; 



16 



LETTER V. 



produce exaggerated language from some of the 
Fathers which approximated to that used by Ro- 
manists in their prayers to the Saints, it would 
not follow that this indiscretion on the part of 
some pious and holy men, could in any degree 
justify you for systematically, soberly, and of set 
purpose, employing language in itself idolatrous. 
But, Sir, I most positively deny, that Christian 
Antiquity furnishes any instances of prayers or 
declarations like those which were adduced in my 
first Letter. I say this, after having perused and 
examined the apparently imposing mass of autho- 
rities which you have produced. I say " appa- 
" rently because 1 was not prepared to find, that 
a large proportion of the passages which you have 
quoted as from the Fathers, including all those on 
which you lay the most stress, are derived from 
apocryphal and spurious writings ; from works 
written centuries after the time of the Fathers to 
whom you attribute them ; from the writings of 
heretics falsely attributed to the Fathers ! Page 

Tournely, De Deo, t. i. p. 181 ; Delahogue, De Ecclesia, p. 436. 
St. Augustine says, " Neque quorumlibet disputationes quamvis 
Catholicorum et laiidatorum hominuin, velut Scripturas Canoni- 
cas habere debemus, ut nobis non liceat salva honorificentia 
quae illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare 
et respuere, si forte invenerimus quod aliter senserint quam 
Veritas habet, divino adjutorio vel ab aliis intellecta, vel a nobis. 
Talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum, tales volo esse intellectores 
meorum." August. Epist. 148. al. 111. ad Fortunatianum Sic- 
censem Episcopum, c. 4. t. ii. p. 502. 



LETTER V. 17 

after page of quotations, garnished with many 
an ingenious remark, and many a grave admoni- 
tion, with your applause of the venerable authors, 
and your contrasts between their sentiments and 
mine, are derived from works, the genuineness of 
which is disputed or denied by the ablest critics, 
even of your own communion ! It is really impos- 
sible to refrain from a smile, when, after indulging 
in masses of quotations of this kind, you deal so 
leniently with a vanquished opponent, as to say, " I 
" cannot persuade myself that he would have se- 
" lected such phrases . . had he been aware, or, at 
66 least, had he remembered, that they were so 
" nearly — indeed quite — identical with those that 
" are found in their (the Fathers') writings m ." I 
must confess that I was not aware of this fact, and 
notwithstanding your labours, I still remain in my 
ignorance. I have not been occupied in the same 
" pleasing task" to which you allude at the close 
of your Letter. The 11 pure sources of ecclesi- 
" astical learning" from which you have been 
" refreshing your mindV do not seem to me 
exactly to merit that title. 

But I proceed to substantiate the truth of the 
above statement, by noticing the various passages 
which you have produced from spurious or doubtful 
compositions. 

You cite (p. 20.) a prayer of St. Ephrem Syrus, 



Remarks, p. 66. 

B 



D lb. p. 86. 



18 



LETTER V. 



contained in the third volume of his works edited 
by Assemani at Eome in 1746. This prayer, 
together with a great body of similar prayers, from 
which you quote largely, appeared for the first time 
in this edition of Ephrem Syrus , having been 
unknown to all former editors of his works. Now 
we find from Assemanr's preface, that all these 
prayers are copied from a manuscript in the Vatican 
Library (of what age it does not appear), which 
consists of a collection of prayers made by some 
monk named Thecaras ; and in this collection, 
the prayers above mentioned are attributed to 
Ephrem p . So that the evidence for their genuine- 
ness depends on the veracity of this monk, of 
whom we know nothing, and who may perhaps 
have been a fictitious personage, or may have 
forged these prayers in the sixteenth or seventeenth 
century, for any thing that we know to the contrary. 
This is the evidence for their genuineness. On the 
other hand, we find that one or two similar prayers 

° Ephrem Syri Opera, Graec. Lat. t. iii. p. 524 — 552. 

p " Precationes Ephraemo tributes, aliae ad Deum sunt, aliae 
" ad B. Virginera Deiparam, aliae ad Sanctos . . separatim ha- 
" bentur . . praesertim in collectione precum, quas Thecaras 
4 < quidem monachus concessit. De hoc Thecara in cod. MS. 
" Graeco Coisliniano ... sic legitur . • ' Sanctissimi Monachi 
" Thecaree orationes compunctoriae, collectae ex divina Scriptura, 
" utplurimum autem ex Sancto Ephrsem.' . . . Suppresso The- 
" carae nomine, extant in cod. Vat. 1 190. a fol. 1117. suntque a 
" nobis editae hoc t. iii. p, 492." Ephrem Syri Opera, t. iii. 
p. liii. 



LETTER V. 



19 



in the former editions of St. Ephrem, containing 
equally exaggerated expressions in honour of the 
blessed Virgin, are rejected by Tillemont ,, , Ceillier r , 
Oudinus 8 , and Cave 1 , as altogether unworthy of 
this holy man, and inconsistent with the spirit of 
the age in which he lived. 

You cite (p. 22.) a passage from the first homily 
44 In Dormitione B. Marias," attributed to John 
Damascenus. Ceillier has observed, that this 
homily contains statements which are not con- 
sistent with the genuine sentiments of its reputed 
author \ And Oudinus remarks, that the Festival 
on which these homilies were delivered, was not 
instituted till a century after the death of Damas- 
cenus ; and that the homilies themselves are attri- 
buted by some manuscripts to Andrew, Bishop of 
Caesarea in the ninth century, by others to Germa- 
nus Bishop of Constantinople in the thirteenth 
century y. The next three quotations (p. 22, 23.) 
are from a homily " In Annunciatione," ascribed 
also to Damascenus. It appears from Ceillier, that 
Leo Allatius believes this homily to have been 

q Tillemont, Histoire Ecclesiastique, t. viiL p. 757. 
1 Ceillier, Hist. Gen. des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, t. viii.p. 65, 
66. ed. Paris, 1740. 

* Casimiri Oudini Comment, de Script. Eccl. t. i. p. 506. 
1 Cave, Hist. Literaria, t. ii. p. 238. 

" Opera, Ed. Lequien, t. ii. p. 859. 

* Ceillier, t. xviii. p. 15. 

y Oudinus, ubi supra, p. 1782. 

b2 



20 



LETTER V. 



composed by Theodore Studites the younger 2 . 
When this writer lived, I cannot at this moment 
discover, but the elder Theodore flourished in the 
ninth century, nearly a hundred years after the time 
of Damascenus. Cellier observes, that there are 
passages in the homilies on the Annunciation, 
" which do not correspond with the modesty and 
" gravity of this Father V 

At p. 23, you extract three more passages from 
the same collection of prayers attributed to Ephrem 
Syrus by the monk Thecaras, of which T have 
spoken before. 

In pages 26, and 27, we have various extracts 
from the Acts of St. Mary of Egypt, which are 
introduced with a statement, that " the Bollandists 
" have proved that her conversion took place about 
" the year 383, and that the Acts themselves can- 
li not have been composed later than 500." On 
referring to the preface of the Bollandists, we find 
first, that the Greeks suppose that Sophonius, 
Patriarch of Jerusalem in the eighth century, was 
the Author of these Actsb; and that the Bollandists 
themselves admit, that there is nothing in their 
own argument, which obliges us to place the history 
of Mary in the fourth or even the fifth century c . 
It is true they assert that the life of Mary was 

1 Ceillier, t. xviii. p. 149. 
a lb. p. 150. 

b Acta Sanctorum, torn. i. April, p. 69. 
c lb. p. 68. 



LETTER V. 



21 



known in the West in the sixth century d . The only 
proof which is brought for this, is an extract from 
some manuscript, (of what age or authority is uncer- 
tain,) in which Mary of Egypt is indeed mentioned, 
but without any allusion to the Acts, as far as I can 
see. So that there is no evidence for the antiquity 
of the Acts, or of the passages quoted from them. 

You produce (p. 28, 29, 30.) very long extracts 
from the Poem entitled " Christus Patiens" attri- 
buted to St. Gregory Nazianzen. Natalis Alex- 
ander, one of your most eminent writers, denies its 
genuineness, and states that the most learned critics 
generally attribute it to Apollinaris of Laodicea — a 
heretic ! Ceillier observes, that it is rejected as a 
spurious composition by Tillemont, Dupin, Baillet, 
Baronius, Kivetus, Vossius, Bellarmine, and Labbe f . 
He is of opinion that it may have been composed 
by another Gregory, who lived in the latter part of 
the sixth century. The Benedictine editors suspect 
it to be later than the ninth century. 

We are next favoured (p. 30, 31.) with long 
extracts from a Sermon attributed to St. Methodius, 
bishop of Patarae. This Sermon is rejected as 
spurious by Ceillier, who states, that the Feast of 
the Purification, on which it was delivered, was not 

d lb. p. 71. 

e Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. t. iv. p. 147. 

f Ceillier, Hist. Gen. &c. t. vii. p. 196. See also, Oudinus 
Comment, de Script. Eccl. t. i. p. 644, &c. ; Cave, Hist. Literaria, 
t. i. p. 248. 



22 



LETTER V. 



instituted till A. D. 527, and that the style is 
unlike that of Methodius f . It is also rejected by 
the learned Jesuit Gretser^ by Canisius h , Oudinus 1 , 
and Cave. Gretser, Oudinus, and Cave, suppose 
it to have been written by Methodius, patriarch of 
Constantinople, in the ninth century. At p. 35, 36. 
you indulge again in quotations from the same 
spurious homily of Methodius. 

The Apocryphal prayers of Ephrem Syrus by 
Thecaras, already alluded to, are cited again, 
p. 41, 42. 

You have hinted that I could hardly have been 
acquainted with the language of the Fathers, when 
I ventured to reprove that of Romanists towards 
the Virgin and the Saints. I must be allowed in 
return to express my surprise, that one who is 
fully qualified to examine into the genuineness of 
writings ascribed to the Fathers, and who is 
evidently acquainted with their real works, should 
have rested the whole strength of his defence on 
productions, which are, at the very first sight, 
suspicious ; and which the slightest enquiry would 
have rejected as valueless. I must say that such a 
mode of defence is worthy of the cause in which it 
is employed, 

f Ceillier, torn. iv. p. 35, 36. 

s Fabricii Bibliotheca Graeca, t. vii. p. 268. ed. Harles, 1801. 
h See Cave, Hist. Lit. t. i. p. 152. 

« Oudinus, De Script. Eccl. t. i. p. 303, 304, 305. proves its 
spuriousness by several very convincing arguments. 



LETTER V. 



23 



§. 4. Dr. Wiseman's Defence of the Worship of the 

Virgin. 

Having thus disposed of the quotations from 
spurious, doubtful, and apocryphal writings, which 
cannot be brought in proof of any doctrine, let us 
next proceed to enquire how far the remainder of 
your citations justify the language to which ob- 
jections were offered in my first Letter. I fear- 
that this discussion of particular passages will be 
rather too heavy a tax on the attention of the 
Reader ; but as I am unwilling to leave any part of 
your defence unexamined, I must only request him 
to pass on to section 5, when he has been satisfied 
of the inadequacy of your proofs. 

I. The first passage you defend is the following. 

" That she [the blessed Virgin] may propitiously 
" assist us while we write, and by her celestial 
" inspiration may guide us to such counsels as may 
" be most salutary to the Christian Church.' ' 
Encyclical Letter. 

I remarked that this passage distinctly invests 
the Virgin with the attributes of Deity, and you do 
not deny that it does. In proof of its lawfulness, 
however, a spurious prayer of St. Ephrem is cited, 
(p. 20.) and also a passage from his genuine 
writings. The latter is wholly unavailing for your 
purpose. St. Ephrem was speaking of the In- 
carnation of our Lord, on which he remarks, that 
God " like a husbandman, grafted the Godhead [of 



24 



LETTER V. 



" his Son] into the [human] nature of the Virgin ;' : 
after which he continues, in the words quoted by 
you, " Mary was therefore to the Father a plant, 
" to the Son a mother, and to men a fountain of 
" the eternal Spirit and the dawn of incorruption k ." 
She was so, by becoming the mother of our Lord ; 
for had not our Lord been born, we should have 
remained in condemnation ; but this is widely 
different from saying, that she is "a fountain of 
" the eternal Spirit, " or that she herself inspires 
good counsels. 

Your next extract (p. 21.) is from Ildephonsus, 
bishop of Toledo, in the latter part of the seventh 
century. This is certainly not an early testimony ; 
nor does it proceed from an author of much notec 
It is however entirely free from the guilt of ascrib- 
ing the Divine attributes to a creature. Ildephon- 
sus says, " I entreat thee, that I may have the 
" Spirit of thy Lord, the Spirit of thy Son x ." This is 
perfectly unlike the language of the Encyclical 
Letter. In the one case the Spirit of God is 
prayed for: in the other the Virgin is invested with 
the attributes of that Spirit. 

These, Sir, are all the passages which you have 
been able to produce in justification of the Ency- 
clical Letter, and I think it may be fairly said, that 
they are wholly insufficient. You allude indeed 

k Ephraemi Syri Opera, Graec. Lat. t. iii. p. 527. ed. Assemani. 
i Ildephonsus Tolet. de perp. Virgin. S. Marine, Opera P. P. 
Toletanorum, Madrid, 1782. p. 110. 



LETTER V. 



25 



(p. 21.) to prayers quoted in another part of your 
pamphlet ; but I have in vain looked for any 
expressions like those which you here defend. My 
conclusion then remains undisturbed ; that the 
blessed Virgin receives amongst you honours which 
are only due to the Trinity, and that she is practi- 
cally invested with the attributes of God. 

II. The next passages you undertake to defend 
are as follows. 

" That She, whom we have acknowledged as our 
" patroness and deliverer amongst the greatest ca- 
" lamities, may &c."- — Encyclical. 

" We fly to thy protection, holy Mother of God,, 
" despise not our prayers .... but deliver us, at all 
" times, from all evils." — Prayer before the Litany 
of Loreto. 

" Condescend to permit me to praise thee, sacred 
" Virgin: Grant me strength against thine enemies.''' — 
Prayer approved by Pius VI. 

I produced some texts to shew, that the same 
confidence is here expressed in the Virgin as Scrip- 
ture teaches us to repose in God. You reply first, 
by quoting from homilies of Damascenus, and 
prayers of St. Ephrem, which are rejected by the 
best critics as doubtful or spurious 1 ". You next 
remark, that " nothing is more common than to 
" find the Fathers thus attributing to the blessed 
" Virgin directly, what must primarily come from 
" God. Thus St. Amphilochius . , , . tells us, that 

™ See above, §.3. 



26 



LETTER V. 



" ' the world is freed by a Virgin, which before by 
" a virgin (Eve) had fallen under sinV " The 
language of this Father might be more accurately 
translated : 4< The world was freed through a Virgin" 
(jjXevOepcoTcu icoa/AO? 8io\ irapOevov) ; that is, by 
our Saviour being born of the Virgin Mary, she was 
an instrumental cause of our salvation. How dif- 
ferent is this from saying, that the Virgin is the 
deliverer of mankind, or from acknowledging her 
power to " deliver us at all times from all evils." 
The language of Amphilochius is that of every 
Catholic : it is entirely free from the semblance of 
idolatry. 

It would certainly be easy to " fill pages with 
quotations" of a similar character from the older 
writers, from St. Treneeus downwards ; (p. 24.) but 
they would not be of any use to you. Sedulius , 
whom you quote, as a specimen of the rest, dis- 
tinctly teaches what Amphilochius did — that the 
Virgin was an instrumental means of our salvation, 
by becoming the mother of Christ our Lord. The 
language of Chrysologus which you next cite, can 
bear no other interpretation p ; and the rhetorical 

n Gallandii Bibliotheca Patrum, t. vi. p. 465. 
The two first verses of the quotation from Sedulius, refer to 
our Lord, not to the Virgin. 

Unius ob meritum cuncti periere minores 
Salvantur cuncti unius ob meritum. 

(Sedulii Opera, ed. Arevalo, p. 361.) 
p The whole passage is as follows. It occurs in a homily on 
the generation of Christ, and the object is to shew, that " Maria" 



LETTER V. 



27 



expressions, taken from an oration of St. Cyril of 
Alexandria, which succeed them, are based on the 
same doctrine throughout. The oration consists 
almost entirely of a series of addresses in the same 
style ; for instance, near the beginning, he says, 
" Hail, city of Ephesus, more than ' sea-beholding/ 
" because, instead of earthly havens, angelical and 
" heavenly havens [the bishops there met to protect 
" the Christian faith against Nestorius] have come 
" to thee ! Hail, glory of the Asiatic government, 
" for as thou art surrounded with precious temples 
" of the Saints like pearls, so now art thou hal- 
" lowed by being trod by many holy Fathers and 
" Patriarchs! &c. q " In the same rhetorical strain 
he afterwards addresses the Virgin, in the words 
you have quoted; but the doctrine conveyed by 
those words is perfectly sound, — that Mary was an 
instrumental cause in the work of salvation, and in 

was a fitting name for the mother of our Lord, because it pre- 
ceded salvation. " And that ' Maria' might always go before the 
" salvation of men, it preceded with songs the people whom the 
4t regenerating water brought into light. ( Maria/ (Miriam) he 
<f saith, e the sister of Aaron, took a cymbal in her hand, saying, 
" Let us sing to the Lord, for he hath triumphed gloriously.' 
" This name, which was salutary to the regenerate, a sign of 
" virginity, the grace of modesty, a sign of chastity, a sacrifice of 
'* God, the virtue of hospitality, an assemblage of holiness, was 
" like a prophecy: justly therefore was this the maternal name of 
u the Mother of Christ." Petrus Chrysologus, Sermo cxlvi. Bibl, 
Patr. 

q Cyril. Alexandr. Opera, ed. Aubert, t. v. pars ii. p. 379. 



28 



LETTER V. 



all that has happened in consequence, by being 
made the mother of our Lord. 

Venantius Fortunatus, whom you next cite, 
teaches exactly the same doctrine r . The second 
verse of the distich distinctly carries its own inter- 
pretation. 

Ad caelos facta es sors, via, porta, rota. 

" Thou wast made the way and gate to Heaven," 
refers evidently to her share in the incarnation of 
our Lord. It is in the same view, that he poeti- 
cally entitles her " his hope of pardon, since she 
" carries the Help of earth ;" i. e. he supposes him- 
self to address her before the birth of our Lord, 
an event on which all his hopes depend. 

In all this, Sir, there is nothing whatever to 
which we can object. It has not the slightest 
tinge of idolatry or of superstition. 

You next state, that " St. Ildephonsus seems to 
" go even further than the rest, and to consider, that 
" without devotion to her, there can hardly be hope of 
" salvation." (p. 26.) I cannot think that you have 
perused the work from which you quote, or you 

r The first passage quoted in the notes, p. 25, where the 
Virgin is spoken of as " the help of earth," is explained fully 
by the context : 

O Virgo insignis, benedicta ad gaudia nata, 

Auxilium terras, fulgor honorque poli, 
Ecce taus fiorens uterus quae praestitit orbi, 
Te generante, fidenos paradisus habet. 

Venant. Fortun. de Laud. Virg. Mariae 



LETTER V. 



29 



would have seen that Ildephonsus goes further than 
even you have stated, and really means, that with- 
out what you here call " devotion" to the Virgin, 
but which might more properly be termed " sound 
" faith," it is impossible to be saved. And in this 
sentiment of Ildephonsus we most heartily agree. 
He was arguing with a Jew who denied the 
Virginity of the Mother, and consequently denied 
that Jesus was the Messiah. It is to this un- 
believer that he uses the language cited by you, 
after which he adds, " Come, let us confess, I the 
" sins and ignorance of my youth ; you the sins of 
" your sacrilege and wickedness, lest the heavens 
" reveal their indignation 5 ." The object was to 
urge the necessity of believing the Virginity of 
Mary ; not to express confidence in her power 

The Acts of St. Mary of Egypt, to which you 
next appeal (p. 26), have been already considered 1 ; 
and it has been shewn that there is no evidence for 
their antiquity. 

The words of St. Gregory Nazianzen which you 
cite (p. 28) are immediately preceded by the fol- 
lowing passage. " Despairing of all remedies, she 
" (Justina) takes refuge with God, and makes her 
" Spouse her protector against this detestable 
•"desire; who delivered Susanna, saved Thecla, 
" &c. . . . Who is this but Christ, who rebukes 

8 Ildephonsus, ap. Patres Tolet. Madrid. 1782. torn. i. p. 122. 
' §. 3. 



30 



LETTER V. 



" the spirits, lifteth up them that are sinking, 
" walketh on the sea, &c." Then follow the 
words cited by you; "Remembering these and 
" many more [instances of Christ's power], and 
" beseeching the Virgin Mary to aid a virgin in 
" danger \" &c. 

I would observe on the preceding passage, that 
it is conceived in such terms, " beseeching the Vir- 
" gin Mary to aid," &c. that we cannot determine 
the form of prayer used. Justina may have em- 
ployed a perfectly unexceptionable form of address 
to the Virgin. It may have been a mere request 
for the Virgin's prayers*. Therefore this passage 
does not touch on the question between us ; which 
is not, whether all addresses to the Virgin are 
unlawful ; but whether it is right to invest her 
with the attributes of Deity. The passage, how- 
ever, distinctly shews, that the whole confidence 
and reliance of Justina were fixed on God and 
Christ, while she merely sought the " aid" of the 

u Gregorii Nazianz. Opera, torn. i. p. 279. Par. 1609. 

x Critics have remarked, that the Homily on St. Cyprian from 
which the above extract is taken, seems to have been composed 
from some very inaccurate traditions, probably derived from the 
monks. It confounds the lives of two Saints of the same name ; 
one of whom was Bishop of Carthage, while the other was of the 
Eastern Church. We cannot depend then on the historical 
correctness of this Homily, and the petition of Justina to the 
Virgin was most probably added by recent oral tradition. You 
need not suppose therefore (see p. 28.) that Justina, who died 
in 304, offered any such petition. 



LETTER V. 



31 



Virgin, as we ourselves might seek the " aid" 
of a fellow-creature in moments of difficulty. 

1 shall not here enter on the question of the 
propriety of asking for the prayers of the Saints — 
a practice, of which the first examples are found 
in the writings of Gregory Nazianzen y . The 
abuses which naturally flow from this practice, 
and of which the Romish prayers under con- 
sideration afford so melancholy an illustration, are 
in themselves perfectly sufficient to shew the wis- 
dom of our Catholic and Apostolic Churches, in 
discontinuing the Invocation of Saints ; and the 
Roman Church herself does not consider such 
invocations necessary z . 

You produce long extracts from St. Gregory 
Nazianzen, and from Methodius (p. 28 — 31) ; 
but, as I have already shewn a , they are derived 
from spurious compositions. 

Having now disposed of all your arguments 

y It may be observed, that Nazianzen, when he addressed the 
departed in his orations, sometimes expressed doubts whether 
they could hear him. Thus in his Homily on Gorgonia, he 

says, " If thou hast any care of the things done by us, &c 

" receive this oration of ours instead of many and before many 
" funeral obsequies." 

2 " The Council of Trent barely teaches that it is good and 
" profitable to invoke the prayers of the Saints ; hence our divines 
44 infer, that there is no positive law of the Church, incumbent on 
" all her children, to pray to the Saints." Milner, End of Con- 
troversy, Letter xxxiii. 

* See §. 3. 



32 



LETTER V. 



in defence of the declarations and prayers under 
consideration, I may again be permitted to say, 
that you have not been able to produce any justifi- 
cation of them from the language of antiquity ; 
and therefore my conclusion remains untouched, 
and even strengthened, — that the Virgin Mary 
receives amongst you honours which are only due 
to God. 

III. You next . undertake to defend the ex- 
pressions of Cardinal Bona in his prayer to the 
Virgin ; and here it may be remarked, that no 
notice has been taken in your pamphlet of some of 
the most objectionable parts of that prayer, in which 
the attributes of God are most broadly ascribed 
to the blessed Virgin ; such as the following : 
" Place me near unto thee, and protect me from all 
<c my enemies visible and invisible. Say unto my 
" soul, I am thy salvation. Direct me thy 
" servant in all my ways and actions. Console me 
" in all my griefs and afflictions. Defend and pre- 
11 serve me from all evils and dangers. Turn thy 
" face unto me when the end of my life shall 
11 come ; and may thy consolation in that tre- 
" mendous hour rejoice my spirit 1 '," &c. Surely 
these are exactly the terms in which we should 
address God — indeed they are the language actually 
employed for that purpose in holy Scripture ; e. g. 
££ Deliver me from mine enemies, O my God." 
(Ps. lix. 1.) " Stop the way against them that 

b Letter I. p. 18. 



LETTER V. 



33 



" persecute me : say unto my soul, I am thy sal- 
" vation." (Ps. xxxv. 3.) " O that my ways were 
" directed to keep thy statutes." (Ps. cxix. 5.) 
" Let, I pray tBee, thy merciful kindness be for my 
" comfort." (Ps. cxix. 76.) " Preserve my life 
" from fear of the enemy." (Ps. lxiv. 1.) " Turn 
" us again, O God of hosts, and cause thy face to 
" shine ; and we shall be saved." (Ps. Ixxx. 7.) 

But I turn to the passage which you have 
selected for defence. It is as follows : 

" Behold, I fall down before thee,, most gracious 
«< Virgin, I fall down and worship in thee thy 
" Son." 

You boldly deny this passage to be idolatrous, 
and your proof is, " The blessed Virgin is con- 
" stantly called by the Fathers the Temple of God, 
" consequently the place in which He is to be 
" worshipped." (p. 33.) We are accordingly 
favoured with long quotations from Chrysologus 
Ephrem Syrus, Cyril of Alexandria, Damascenus, 
Sedulius, Maximus Taurinensis, and a spurious 
passage from Methodius'. We fully allow the 
doctrine taught by all these Fathers. The blessed 
Virgin did, most undoubtedly, become the Temple 
of the Godhead, by conceiving our Lord Jesus 
Christ : but, Sir, do you mean to say, that she is 
still the temple of the Godhead in this sense ? No : 
she ceased to be so, when our Saviour was born. 
I can produce higher authorities than you have 
c pp. 33—36, 
C 



34 



LETTER V. 



cited, to prove that every believer is a temple of 
God. St. Paul says, " Know ye not that ye are 
" the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God 
11 dwelleth in you ?" (1 Cor. hi. 16.) " Know ye 
" not that your body is the temple of the Holy 
" Ghost which is in you?" (1 Cor. vi. 19.) And 
yet, what would you think of saying to any living 
man, " Behold, I fall down before thee ; I fall down 
" and worship in thee thy God?" Observe that 
the language of Bona is not, " I worship thy Son, 
" who dwelleth in thee as in a temple but, " I 
" worship in thee, thy Son i. e. " In worship- 
" ping thee, I worship thy Son." 

In a note (p. 36.) you produce a passage from 
St. Ephrem Syrus, to prove that the mere type 
of our Lord may be worshipped in a third person ! 
I really do not profess to understand the meaning of 
this. The whole passage, as translated from the Syriac 
by Assemani, is as follows. " The Year also, parent 
" of all the months and days, with all the hours and 
" moments which depend on it, adored [Christ] 
" the Conqueror of death, by its child April [the 
" month in which our Lord suffered]; like as 
" Rachel through [her child] Jacob worshipped 
" Joseph, whom, as a type of the Son of God, 
" the Sun and Moon, the rulers of the year, 
" adored V The allusion is to Joseph's dream 6 , 
in which the Sun and Moon, representing his 

d Ephraem Syri Opera, Syriaco-Lat. t. iii. p. 604. 
e Genesis xxxvii. 9, 10. 



LETTER V. 



35 



father and mother, did obeisance to him ; and it is 
here introduced to illustrate the highly figurative 
language in reference to the Year.. Assuredly St. 
Ephrem did not mean that Rachel or Jacob really 
and literally adored Joseph : he only alludes to a 
dream. 

Your justification of Cardinal Bona having thus 
entirely failed, my conclusion remains unshaken, — 
that the Virgin receives amongst you honours which 
are only due to God. 

IV. The next prayers which you undertake to 
defend are as follows. 

" Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, I offer to you my 
M heart and my soul — Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, 
" assist me in my last agony— Jesus, Joseph, and 
" Mary, may my soul expire in peace with you. ,J 
Prayer approved by Pius VI. 

4< O holy Joseph .... I beseech and pray thee, 
" by both these dear pledges, Jesus and Mary .... 
" to make me ever most chastely to serve Jesus 
" and Mary, &c." Approved by Pius VII. 

You do not understand (p. 37.) what is meant 
by my observation, that our Lord is made a sort 
of Mediator between Joseph and his worshippers, 
in this latter prayer. The term perhaps did not 
fully express my meaning, which was, that Joseph 
is here invoked to have mercy on us for the sake of 
Christ, i. e. just in the same way in which we 
should approach the Father. We should beseech 
Him 4C by his dear Son," to make us serve Him. 

c 2 



36 



LETTER V. 



Here the same form of supplication is addressed to 
Joseph. 

Let us now turn to your defence of the prayers 
before us. 

(1) You enquire first: "Does the union of 
" creatures with God, in the same address or 
" act of homage, imply their equality in the mind 
" of him who makes it ?" (p. 37.) I answer, that 
it certainly does : unless there be some accompany- 
ing circumstance which implies that a difference is 
made. 

You appeal to expressions of Terence and 
Horace (p. 37.) ; but they are not " addresses" or 
" acts of homage," and therefore do not affect the 
question. You refer to the language of Scripture 
(1 Chron. xxix. 20, 21.) " And David said to all 
" the congregation, Now bless the Lord your God. 
" And all the congregation blessed the Lord God 
16 of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, 
" and worshipped the Lord and the King. And 
* ' they offered sacrifices unto the Lord, and offered 
" burnt-offerings unto the Lord." Here you will 
observe, that their thanksgivings, prayers, sacri- 
fices, were directed entirely to God; therefore no 
one could imagine, that the act of bowing down 
their heads to worship the Lord and the King, 
(if both were worshipped in the same act, which 
may not have been the case,) could have been 
intended to express the same homage to each. 

You observe (p. 37.) that our Lord is said to 



LETTER V. 



37 



have increased " in favour with God and man." 
This furnishes no excuse for praying to God and 
man as if they had the same power. The language 
of the prodigal (p. 37.) to his Father, " I have 
" sinned against Heaven and before thee/' does not 
justify you in addressing your prayers in common 
to God and man, as if they were equally the objects 
of faith and confidence. 

The inscriptions which you next produce (p. 38.) 
in illustration of " the practice of the early Church," 
will not assist you. 

The first is accompanied by the following remark. 
" Muratori considers this inscription of the fifth or 
" [early part of the] sixth century." (p. 38.) On 
referring to Muratori f , I find that three most 
eminent critics, including Fontanini, Archbishop 
of Ancyra, attribute the inscription to the ninth 
century ; that a fourth (Scalabrinius) thinks it 
ought to be referred to the fifth or sixth century ; 
and that Muratori himself gives no opinion as to its 
date. 

The second inscription (p. 38.) appears from 
Muratori s to be of the ninth century. 

The third inscription (p. 38, 39.) cannot be 
earlier than the seventh century, because the title 
of " Arcarius of the Holy See" which occurs there, 
is not of more ancient date 11 . The inscription 

{ Muratori, Antiquitates Medii iEvi, torn. v. p. 358. 
« Ibid. 

h Du Cangii Glossarium. 



38 



LETTER V. 



however may have been of much later date than 
the seventh century. These inscriptions then do 
not represent the language of the early Church. 

The fourth inscription (p. 39.) according to you, 
" takes us back to the year 383 at least, as this 
" Bassus was slain before the reign of Gratian." 
(p. 39.) The same inscription is adduced in your 
Letter to Mr. Poynder', where it is again stated, 
that Anicius Bassus " lived about 380 years after 
" Christ/' and that "he is mentioned in eccle- 
" siastical history as having with Marinianus the 
" patrician, most calumniously accused Pope Six- 
" tus ; upon whose full justification, his goods were 
" confiscated by Valentinian." There is some sad 
flaw in your chronology here ; for Pope Sixtus 
was not elected till A. D. 432 k , and Valentinian 
flourished about the same time. How therefore 
you can take us back" to 383, is entirely beyond 
my comprehension. " Ecclesiastical history" in 
the form of Baronius' Annals, fixes the transaction 
alluded to in the year 433 

As to the inscription itself, which you have 
produced, it can have no weight in a matter of 
controversy, proceeding as it did from the pen 
of a layman of no authority. Besides, we do not 

1 Wiseman, Letters to Poynder, p. 38. 
k Baronius, Fleury, Hist. Eccl. 

1 Baronii Annales, t. vii. p. 460. ed. Lucse, 1741. Ceillier 
rejects the whole transaction as fabulous, t. xiii. p. 240; but it 
appears from his account that Bassus was Consul in 431. 



LETTER V. 



39 



know where it was placed, or with what object. 
If these circumstances were known, they might 
aid us in judging of the propriety of the inscription. 
E. g. If it had been placed in a Church erected in 
honour of the Saints or Martyrs, it might not have 
been very unbecoming. 

I have to make but one more observation on all 
these inscriptions : it is simply this. They contain 
no " acts of homage/' no " addresses" to God and 
the Saints in common, and therefore they cannot 
justify your prayers. 

You next refer (p. 40.) to the well-known pas- 
sage in St. Justin Martyr, where it is said, " Him 
" [God], and his Son who came from Him, and 
" taught us these things, and the army of good 
" Angels who follow and resemble Him, and the 
M spirits of prophecy, we venerate and adore 111 ." 
You are of course aware, that the ablest critics, 
even in the Roman Church, are much divided as to 
the proper translation of this passage n , and that 
many writers render it thus : " Him ; and his Son 
" who came from Him, and taught us and the army 
" of good angels these things ; and the Spirit," &c. 
But even taking it as you do, the Angels are not 
really joined " under the same form of expression" 
(p. 40.) with God ; for, as the Benedictine Editors 

m Just. Mart. Apolog. i. p. 11. ed. Thirlby. 

n The reader may here be referred to the valuable works of the 
Bishop of Lincoln on Justin Martyr, p. 53. and of Mr. Tyler on 
" Primitive Christian Worship," p. 107 — 111. 



40 



LETTER V. 



remark ° 5 the word " venerate" refers to the Angels, 
and " adore" (wpoo-Kvvovfxev) to God. In another 
place Justin expressly says, " We adore (irpoaKV- 
" vovfxev) God onlyP." 

Thus then it appears, that you have been unable 
to produce either from Scripture or Antiquity, any 
language which can justify Romanists in addressing 
at the same moment the same homage and prayers 
to created beings and to God. 

(2) Your second question (p. 41.) is: " Can it 
" be idolatrous to desire or pray that the blessed 
" Virgin and the Saints should receive our souls 
" when we expire, or assist us at the hour of 
" death?" 

In proof of the lawfulness of this practice you 
observe, that St. Ambrose says the blessed Virgin 
will receive virgins when they die, and present 
them to her Son q . You next refer to what St. 
Gregory the Great relates on the authority of a 
person named Probus, whose sister beheld a vision 
of the Virgin as she was dying, and addressed her 
in the words, " Behold, Lady, I come r ." We are 

° Zifiopiv xeci TTgoo-xwovftiv, colimus et adoramus. Nam primum 
quidem ad angelos ipsos refertur, habita ratione discriminis quod 
inter Creatorem et rem creatam intercedit. Alterum autem 
nequaquam angelos necessarib comprehendit. Saepe duo verba 
simul conjuncta non ad unam et eandem rem, sed ad diversas 
judicio legentium referuntur. Just. Mart. ed. Benedict, p. xxii. 

p Justin. Mart. Apol. i. p. 26. ed. Thirlby. 

9 Ambros. de Virgin, lib. ii. c. ii. 

1 Gregorii Dialog, i. iv. c. xvii. 



LETTER V. 



41 



next favoured with a spurious prayer of St. Ephrem, 
and with the language of Maximus in an Oration on 
St. Eusebius of Vercelli, in which he expresses a 
wish, that when we depart from this world, he may 
" receive us into his abode and his bosom'," as 
Abraham received Lazarus into his bosom. Other 
passages from the same writer follow, in which it is 
said that the Martyrs "receive us," when we go 
forth from the body. 

All this may be more or less right, probable, or 
true ; but I cannot see how it meets the objection 
offered to your prayers. The real objection which 
I advanced was, that Jesus, Joseph, and Mary are 
placed on an equality, by being invoked in common 
at the same moment, to receive our souls. This 
would lead one to think that they are equal: that 
they are a Trinity of some sort — that they are three 
Gods, or three human beings. It is no answer to 
this objection to say, that the saints or angels 
receive our souls at the hour of death. 

(3) Your third question (p. 43.) is: " Does the 
" 1 serving of Jesus and Mary' necessarily imply a 
" division of service or allegiance between them; 
" and not a bestowing on each a different species 
" of it?" 

In proof that it does not, you refer to the answer 
to the first question. It has been shewn, I think, 
that you will not find much help in that quarter. 

* Maximus, Horn, lxxviii. 



42 



LETTER V. 



As to the passage from Ildephonsus, which is 
adduced (p. 44.) in farther proof, I need only re- 
mark, that it makes a broad distinction between 
the Virgin and God : " Ideo ego servus tuus, quia 
" tuus Filius Dominus meus. Ideo tu Domina 
" mea, quia tu ancilla Domini mei 1 ." " Thou art 
" my mistress, because thou art the handmaid of my 
" Lord." These latter expressions you have thought 
proper to omit. Jn no part of the passage does 
Ildephonsus say, " I serve Jesus and Mary," or 
use any expressions like those that have been ob- 
jected to. 



Such then is the result of your defence of the 
prayers and homage offered to the blessed Virgin 
by the most eminent authorities in the Roman 
Communion. You have not attempted to deny 
that they attribute Divine powers to creatures ; 
that they solicit from them favours which God 
alone can bestow ; that they place created beings 
on a level with their Creator. You have entirely 
failed to bring from Scripture or Tradition any 
instances of similar forms. I have a right there- 
fore to re-assert that they are idolatrous ; that your 
Communion is deeply tinged with idolatrous prac- 
tices ; and that those idolatries are openly defended 
and justified by the very persons, whose office (if 
it was legitimately acquired) would compel them, 

1 Ildephonsus, ap. Patres Toletanos, p. 158. ed. 1782. 



LETTER V. 



43 



under pain of damnation, to oppose every thing 
that is connected with Idolatry. 

It is to the nature of the prayers and other 
honours offered by you to the Virgin that we object, 
so that we shall not attempt to dispute the right of 
the Roman Church to use such prayers frequently 
(p. 45.) if they may be used at all. There is not 
the slightest evidence that the primitive Church 
ever practised such worship. We have no reason 
to think that any ancient devotional works (p. 45.) 
contained expressions like those which you employ. 
There is no trace of them in the ancient liturgies ; 
none in the genuine writings of the Fathers. They 
only appear in the writings of heretics, in spurious 
and apocryphal writings, or in the figurative lan- 
guage of poetry. 



I shall only make a few remarks on the re- 
mainder of your third section, in which a theory, 
which I have not time to examine, (p. 45 — -53.) is 
propounded to account for the greater veneration 
paid to the blessed Virgin in later than in earlier 
times. I cannot but wonder that you should appeal 
(p. 47.) to the martyrdom of St. Polycarp, in proof 
that " devotion towards the martyrs began from 
" the earliest ages." I shall reserve the passage 
for future consideration : it is decisively opposed to 
you. You observe (p. 52.) that " Christian monu- 
" ments of the age of the Catacombs represent the 



44 



LETTER V. 



m Virgin as superior to the Apostles themselves." 
This is quite consistent with a sound faith, and yet 
it does not warrant our giving Divine honours either 
to one or the other. The figures to which you 
allude u may be as ancient as you imagine, but they 
resemble those found in manuscripts of a much 
later date. 

In allusion to the Collyridian heresy, which 
elevated the blessed Virgin into a Deity, you re- 
mark, that " this foolish idolatry could hardly have 
" sprung up, where no sort of veneration had ever 
" been paid." (p. 52, 53.) Very true: but who 
supposes that " no sort of veneration had ever been 
" paid," or that no sort of veneration is due? All 
that we contend against, is what the Collyridian 
heretics practised, and what Romanists follow them 
in practising, i. e. worshipping the Virgin with 
Divine honours ; offering to her the same homage 
and worship which is offered to God. How you 
can venture to quote the language of Epiphanius, 
" Let honour be given to Mary, but let only Father, 
" Son, and Holy Ghost be adored" (p. 53.) after 
having so systematically justified prayers and 
addresses in which the Virgin is placed on a level 
with the Trinity, is a matter of no small surprise 
to me. 



" Sedulii Opera, ed. Arevalo, p. 351. 



LETTER V. 



45 



§.4. Dr. Wiseman's Defence of Prayers to Saints. 

I have maintained that the Saints receive amongst 
you " honours which are only due to God x ," and in 
proof of this have cited the following passages. 

" We will earnestly beseech with humble prayers 
" from the Prince of the Apostles Peter, and from 
" his co-Apostle Paul, that you may stand as a 
" wall. Relying on this delightful O hope, we trust 
" that the Author and Finisher of our faith, 
" Jesus Christ, will at length console us in all our 
" tribulations." Encyclical. 

" Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, I offer you my heart 
" and my soul, &c." as above, p. 35. 

" Angel of God who art my guardian, enlighten 
" me who am committed to thee with heavenly 
" piety ; guard, direct, and govern me." Approved 
by Pius VI. 

" O holy Joseph I beseech and pray thee 

" to preserve me from all uncleanness, and 

" make me ever most chastely to serve Jesus and 
" Mary." Approved by Pius VII. 

(1) Your first question on these prayers is as 
follows. " Is it idolatrous or wrong to address or 
" to speak of any Saints, more especially the two 
" great Apostles, as protectors?" (p. 55.) 

I do not mean to say that it is idolatrous in all 
cases ; but I do certainly think it wrong to attribute 



x Letter I. p. 25. 



46 



LETTER V. 



to the Apostles the protection of the Church, while, 
in the very next words, we only attribute to Christ, 
its consolation; because this seems to place the 
Apostles on a level with our Saviour, to say the 
least. I think also that it is wrong to express at 
the same moment, in the same terms, the same 
confidence in God and in his creatures. 

You refer to St. Basil's homily on the Forty 
Martyrs when he speaks in the following terms. 
" These are they who having obtained a place 
" amongst us, (their relics were deposited in the 
" Church of Cassarea,) like continual towers, afford 
" security from the incursions of the enemies 7 ." 
That is, their memory and example was calculated 
to encourage Christians against the assaults of 
heresies and evil spirits. I do not see that we can 
deduce any thing more from this passage, or that 
it can justify your practice. 

Your next proof is from Paulinus of Nola, who 
in an epitaph, and a poetical epitaph on the pres- 
byter Clarus, desires his prayers for himself and his 
wife Therasia. The whole passage is free from any 
thing that looks like idolatry, and does not afford 
any justification of the prayers and expressions 
to which we object 2 . It is doubted whether the 

y 6VT01 StTIV 01 T«V XCttf iJfifi&S X,&(>CtV $101 hctfioVTiS, 010VU 7TVgy6l TlVi$ 

o-vviftiis, oxrQc&XiicAV Ik iv^ ray Ivxvti&iv y.xTudgo/Hiiq TrugiftOfiivoi. Basilii 

Opera, t. ii. p. 135. ed. Benedict. 

z Sic Deus accivit, sic nos Martinus amavit 
Sic et tu pariter Clare tuere pares. 



LETTER V. 



47 



passion of Genesius was written by Paulinus of 
Nola, but the exhortation is to pray for the inter- 
cession of Genesius, " Patrocinetur" may well be 
translated, " plead for a ." The next extracts from 
Paulinus are poetical, and cannot afford precedents 
for prayers, and solemn declarations. It was sup- 
posed by many persons, that the martyrs took a 
particular interest in those places where their relics 
were deposited, and honoured • and that they 
prayed for them. This notice, however uncertain, 
led to expressions of confidence in their intercession 
and patronage with reference to those particular 
places. 

The language of St. Prudentius (p. 56.) amounts 
to a wish that St, Laurence may love his fellow- 
citizens ; and the same sentiment in another form, 
appears in his hymn on St. Eulalia. (Ibid.) But 
these again are poetical expressions, such as any 
Christian poet who disapproved of your prayers 
might still employ. 

The language of Gaudentius, Venantius, Leo, 
Chrysostom, Maximus, (pp. 57, 58.) merely shews 
that those writers sometimes used the terms of 

Non meritis sed amore pares, tu sancte valebis 

Exorare pares et meritis fieri, 
Si cum Martino socia pietate labores, 

Ut vincant vestrse crimina nostra preces. 

Paulinus Epist. xxxii. ad Severum, ed. Muratori. 
a Paulini Passio S. Genesii, p. 316. 



48 



LETTER V. 



6( patronage" or li protection/' when they alluded 
to the prayers of the Saints to God for men. This 
does not excuse you for expressing your con- 
fidence at the same time and in the same manner, in 
the power of God and of His creatures. It does 
not justify Gregory XVI. for asserting that Peter 
and Paul protect the Church, while Christ consoles 
it. It does not excuse you for " offering your 
" hearts and souls" to " Jesus, Joseph, and 
" Mary," instead of to the Father, the Son, and 
the Holy Spirit. 

You are right in saying that the bishop of Rome 
might safely repeat the homilies of St. Leo, " with- 
" out disparagement to his claim of supremacy," 
(p. 58.) ; for no one was more zealous to maintain 
and augment the dignity of his See. The " pro- 
" tection" of which St. Leo speaks in the passage 
you have cited, refers to the promise of Christ that 
Peter's faith should not fail, Luke xxii. 21. which 
St. Leo uses as an encouragement to us\ His 
continual object was to represent that St. Peter 
still lived in his successors, and that all the 
promises made to him, were made to the bishops 
of Rome also . 

It is doubtful whether any such verses as you 
mention (p. 59.) were ever inscribed over the gate 
of Glastonbury Church; for the book of William 

b Opera, ed. Quesnel. t. i. p. 18. 

* Opera, t. i. p. 103, 104—106, 110, 112. 



LETTER V. 



49 



of Malmsbury " on the Antiquities of Glastonbury, 1 ' 
from which they are taken, is full of fabulous 
narrations, supplied probably by the monks of 
Glastonbury. 

(2) The next question is as follows: "Is it 
* c direct prayer to Saints, for favours which God alone 
" can bestow, that Mr. Palmer so strongly reprobates 
" in the examples last quoted ? Surely he ought to 
" be aware that in the ancient Church such prayers 
" were admitted." (p. 59.) 

Your citations do not prove this. St. Gregory 
of Nyssa states, that a person by saying, " Holy 
" Ephrem help (assist) me d ," escaped from a 
dangerous position. Such an expression does not 
interfere with the Divine attributes. It is widely 
different from your prayers to Saints. We may be 
" helped" by a fellow-creature: but we have no 
right to ask from him blessings, and graces, as if 
he were a Divinity. The language of Gregory 
Nazianzen (p. 60.) is plainly rhetorical. It occurs 
in an Oration in praise of St. Cyprian. That of 
St. John Chrysostom (p. 60.) recognises through- 
out the Divine power, and supposes that the Saints 
can only aid us by their prayers. The same 
may be said of the succeeding quotations from 
Chrysostom, and Gregory of Nyssa. (p. 61.) The 
passage cited from Basil (p. 61.) does not seem to 
me to refer to any invocation of Saints. It is 

d Nyssen. Opera, t. iii. p. 615, ed. 1638. 
D 



50 



LETTER V. 



thus introduced : " Where two or three are gathered 
" together in the name of the Lord, there is He in 
" the midst of them. Where there are forty, [in 
" allusion to the relics of the forty Martyrs,] who 
" doubts that He is present ? The afflicted takes 
" refuge with the forty Martyrs [i. e. in their 
" Church]." Then follows the remainder of your 
quotation 6 . The meaning is, that prayers may 
be offered to God in the Church of the Martyrs, 
with peculiar confidence. The passage from St. 
Ambrose (p. 61, 62.) distinctly supposes that the 
Angels and Martyrs aid us by their prayers, and 
that they are creatures as we are. 

In none of these cases were " direct prayers" 
offered " to Saints, for favours which God alone 
" can bestow. " 

The next passage, from St. - Ambrose, is an 
exhortation of a pious matron to her son to devote 
himself entirely to God, in which she says, 
" There we deposited our vows whence we took 
" the name. The effect followed our vows: give 
" therefore back to the Martyr, what thou hast 
" received from the Martyr f ." The meaning is, 
that she had offered her vows to God at the Church 
of the Martyr St. Laurence, and that the Martyr 
had " obtained" (p. 63.) by his prayers this child. 
This merely supposes that the prayers of a Martyr 
had great efficacy. The language in reference to 

e Basil. Horail. in XL Martyrs, t. ii. p. 155. ed. Benedict. 
f Ambros. Exhort. Virgin, c. iii. 



LETTER V. 



51 



Felix and Laurentius (p. 63.) is poetical, and cannot 
be judged with the strictness which should be 
applied to prose compositions. The same observa- 
tion is applicable to that of S. Prudentius (p. 64.) 
Doubtful of his own merits, he wishes for the 
additional prayers of the Saint. As for the senti- 
ments of Valerian, bishop of Cemela, we cannot 
attach any weight to what has been rather inju- 
diciously said by this obscure writer, in opposition 
to the sentiments of the most eminent Fathers 
which I shall hereafter produce. 

In conclusion, I will only observe, that in no one 
of the passages adduced by you are there any direct 
prayers to Saints for favours which God only can 
bestow : nor are the Saints addressed at the same 
time and in the same manner as God. Conse- 
quently the objections which have been offered to 
your prayers and language remain unanswered. 

§, 5. Romanism condemned by Catholic Antiquity, 

Having now completed the examination of your 
defence, and shewn that the appeal which you have 
made to Catholic Antiquity in justification of 
Romish addresses to Saints and Angels, is perfectly 
unavailing ; it remains for me to produce the real 
sentiments of the Fathers, not derived from spurious 
or heretical compositions, but from their own 
genuine writings. It remains for me to shew, that 
the principles and the practice of Romanists are 

d 2 



52 



LETTER V. 



equally condemned by Catholic Antiquity — that 
they are derived from Heresies and Idolatries repu- 
diated by the Catholic Church. You have appealed 
to Catholic Antiquity. Will you consent to stand 
or fall by its real verdict ? 

Which doctrine then is the most conformable to 
that of the primitive Church ? We are of opinion 
that religious worship is due to God only, and not 
to any creature whatever, be it angel, spirit, man, 
beast, or inanimate creature. We honour and love 
Angels and Saints, because they are loved by God ; 
but we think it wrong to offer religious worship 
to any being whatever but God. We hold that 
prayer ought only to be offered to God — that it is a 
species of sacrifice which is only due to the Divine 
nature. We think that it is unlawful to repose our 
hope, trust, or confidence in any creature. We 
think it needless to ask for the intercession of Saints 
and Angels to render us acceptable to God; and we 
believe that we ought ourselves boldly to approach 
the Throne of Grace, confiding in the intercession 
of Jesus Christ. We think it unlawful to unite the 
name of God with that of his creatures in prayer, 
and to offer the same acts of homage to them. 
The doctrines and practice of Romanists are op- 
posed to ours on all these points. Let us then 
place the question before the Fathers, and ascertain 
their decision. 

I. "Is it lawful to worship any other being but 
God ? Is all religious worship to be offered to Him 



LETTER V. 



53 



alone? And are the Saints, Angels, and other 
created beings, only to be loved, honoured, imi- 
tated, or regarded, as the case may be ?" 

The doctrine of Christian Antiquity is decisive 
on this point. Justin Martyr, who wrote little 
more than a century after the death of our Lord, 
in describing to the Emperor Antoninus the doc- 
trines inculcated by our Saviour, speaks thus : 
" That it is necessary to worship God alone, 
" (Christ) thus persuaded us, saying, 4 The greatest 
" commandment is, Thou shalt worship the Lord 
44 thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve, with 
" all thy heart and with all thy strength; even 
44 the Lord God who made thee;' and when a 
44 certain person came and said to Him, 4 Good 
44 Master/ He answered, saying, 4 None is good 
44 save God only, who made all things.' But 
" they who are not found living according to his 
" instructions, be it known that they are not Chris- 
44 tians .... He answered them, saying, 6 Render 
44 therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, 
44 and to God the things that are God's.' Where- 
<£ fore we worship God only, but in other respects 
" we are gladly obedient to you"." It may per- 
haps be said, that the restriction of all worship to 
God in this passage, had reference only to the 
Heathen worship of false gods or deified men, 
and was not intended as any denial of that worship 

g Justin Martyr, Apologia Prima, p. 25, 26. ed. Thirl by. 



54 



LETTER V. 



which is due to Saints and Angels. This is a 
distinction entirely without foundation, because, 
as will be shewn, the Fathers objected in general 
to the worship of any creatures whatever ; and on 
this one broad principle rejected equally the false 
gods of the Heathen, and the idolatrous heresies 
of the Collyridians and Angelici. But I shall now 
produce a passage to which you have alluded, 
(p. 48.) and which is conclusive against you. 

It is taken from perhaps the most beautiful 
monument of Christian Antiquity — I mean the 
Acts of the martyrdom of St. Poljxarp, Bishop 
of Smyrna, which w 7 ere composed A. D. 167, 
immediately after the events which they narrate. 
It appears, that after the martyrdom of Polycarp, 
the enemies of the Christians endeavoured to pre- 
vent them from obtaining his remains. They 
urged the Roman Proconsul not to give up the 
body, " Lest, forsaking the crucified (Jesus), they 
" should begin to adore this man. And this they 
" said by the suggestion and aid of the Jews, who 
" had watched our endeavours to remove him from 
" the fire, being ignorant that we can never forsake 
" Christ, who suffered for the salvation of those 
" who are saved out of all the world, nor adore 
" any other. For Him, as being the Son of God, 
" we worship ; but the Martyrs, as being disciples 
" and imitators of the Lord, we love as they deserve, 
£< on account of their unconquerable love to their 



LETTER V. 



55 



" King and Master 1 '." No words can more plainly 
teach our doctrine — that worship is due to God 
only. This is also the language of Athenagoras, 
a writer of the second century, " We (Christians) 
M do not approach (spiritual) powers, and serve 
" them; but their Lord and Master 1 ." 

St. Irenseus, Bishop of Lyons, and a friend of 
the holy Martyr Polycarp, says, that " our Lord 
" manifestly shewed that the Lord, who had been 
" declared by the Law, is the true and one God, 
" for He whom the Law (of Moses) had announced 
" as God, Christ shews to be the Father, whom 
" alone the disciples of Christ must serve . . . The 
" Law commands us to praise God the Creator, 
" and to serve Him only k ," &c. Compare this with 
the prayer to St. Joseph \ that he will " make us 
" serve Jesus and Mary." The language of St. 
Theophilus of Antioch, who lived in the latter 
part of thefsecond century, is equally clear. '* A 
" king," he says, " does not wish those who are 
" subject to him to be called kings" [i. e. to 
receive royal honours]. " For ' the king' is his 
" title, and it is unlawful for any other person 
" to be called so. In like manner it is not lawful 

h Eccles. Smyrnensis Epist. de S. Polycarp. Martyr, ap. Patres 
Apostol. t. ii. p. 585. ed. Jacobson. 

* Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christianis, ap, Gallandii Bibl, 
Patr. ii. p. 15. 

k Irenaeus, adv. Haeres. lib. v. c. 22. ed. Benedict. 

1 See above, p. 35. 



56 



LETTER V. 



" to worship any but God only n \" This, you will 
observe, is the very argument I have employed 
against your acts of external worship to the Virgin 
and Saints. An earthly king would be offended at 
seeing royal honours paid to his subjects : and it is 
unlawful to act towards God in a way which we 
should not dare to attempt with an earthly Sove- 
reign. 

St. Clement of Alexandria considers it a principal 
point of religion to " worship one God alone, who is 
' ' truly omnipotent";" and the same doctrine is 
taught in various places by Tertullian . Thus, in his 
reflections on Prayer, he remarks on the wisdom of 
our Lord's command " of praying in secret, by which 
" he . . . . desired the lowliness of faith, that to Him 
" alone, whom he believed to hear and to see every 
" where, he would offer his worship*." These senti- 
ments remained with Tertullian even after he had 
fallen into the heresy of Montanus : " It is enjoined 
" me," he says in his Scorpiace, " not to call any 
" other being God; that I should not even in 
" speaking, by my tongue no less than by my hand 
" make a God; that / should not adore, or in any 
" manner venerate, any other but that One who thus 

m Theophil. Antioehen. lib. i. ad Autolycum, c. xi. Gallandii 
Bibliotheca Patrum, t. ii. p. 84. 

D Stromata, lib. vi. t. ii. Oper. p. 825. ed Potteri. 

° Athenagoras, Legat. pro Christianis, uhi supra, p. 13. 

p Tertullian, De Orat. p. 129. ed. Rigaltii Par. 1664. 



LETTER V. 



57 



" commands ; whom J am also commanded to fear, 
" lest 1 be forsaken by Him V 

The language of the Fathers was always the 
same ; St. Cyprian says, that evils are inflicted on 
men, " in order that the One God of all, may be 
" alone worshipped and prayed to by aZZ r ." St. 
Dionysius of Alexandria says, " We worship and 
" adore the One God and Creator of all things 
" who entrusted the empire to V Jerian and Gallie- 
" nus beloved of God . ... We worship no other*." 
Such also was the language of the Martyr Fructuo- 
sus Bishop of Tarragona, (about A.D. 262.) " I 
" worship one God, who made heaven and earth and 
" all that therein is," When his Deacon Eulogius 
was asked whether he would worship Fructuosus 
after his death, he replied, " I worship not Fruc- 
" tuosus, but 1 worship Him whom Fructuosus 
" worships alsoV Lactantius says, " No other 
" religion and ivorship is to be held, but that of 
" one God u ." 

St. Athanasius supplies us with the principle on 
which the Church refused to worship any being 
except God. It was not merely because heathens 
and heretics worshipped false or imaginary Gods : 

q Tertull. Scorpiace, p. 490. 

' Cyprian, ad Demetrian, p. 232. ed. Rigaltii, 1649. 
* Eusebii Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. 11. p. 258. ed. Valesii. 
1 Baronii Annales, Anno 262. §. 60. t. iii. p. 126. ed. Lucas 
1738. 

u Lactantii Instit. I. i. c. 20. ap. Galland. Bibl. Patr. iv. 245. 



58 



LETTER V. 



it was, on this broad, plain, and most rational 
principle — that religious worship was unsuitable to 
any creature — that it belonged only to the Creator 
of all things. He argues that Christ is God be- 
cause he is worshipped, for that no one except God 
can be worshipped. His argument is very remark- 
able. 

" One creature" he says, " doth not worship 
" another, but the servant his master, the creature 
" his God. Whence Peter the Apostle hindered 
" Cornelius when he wished to worship him, say- 
" ing, 6 1 also am a man.' The Angel also hindered 
" John when he wished to worship him in the 
" Apocalypse, saying, ' See thou do it not, for I 
" am thy fellow-servant, and of thy brethren the 
" Prophets, and of them which keep the sayings 
" of this book, Worship God.' Therefore it belongs 
i( to God only to be worshipped. And this the 
6 * Angels themselves know, that although they 
" excel others in glory, they are yet all creatures, 
" and are not in the number of those who are to be 
" worshipped, but of them who ivorship the Lord*." 
It may be remarked here, that it would be perfectly 
absurd to imagine even for a moment, that Corne- 
lius or St. John could have really intended to give 
Divine honours to Peter or the Angel. Neverthe- 
less their worship was in each case forbidden ; and 
according to St. Athanasius it is only due to God. 

x Athanasii Orat. ii. contra Arianos, t, i. p. 491. Oper. ed. 
Benedict, 



LETTER V. 



59 



And the principle on which such worship is for- 
bidden is, that creatures are not to be worshipped. 

This principle is also laid down by St. Gregory 
of Nyssa in the following terms. " That none of 
" those things which have their being by creation 
" is to be worshipped by men the Divine word 
" hath enacted, as we may learn from almost all the 
" divinely-inspired Scripture. Moses, the Tables, 
" the Law, the Prophets afterwards, the Gospels, 
" the doctrine of all the Apostles, equally forbid 
" the looking unto the creature." He then observes, 
that the neglect of this introduced heathen idolatry; 
and continues thus: " Lest we should suffer the 
ct same things, who have been instructed by the 
" Scriptures to look to the true Godhead ; we 
" have been taught to understand, that every 
" created thing is different from the Divine nature, 
" and to adore and worship only the uncreated 
" nature, the character of which is never to begin 
" and never to end its existence 7 ." 

The language of Hilary, a deacon of the Roman 
Church in the time of Pope Damasus 2 , is also very 

y Gregor. Nyss. contra Eunom. Orat. iv. t. ii. p. 144, 146. 
Oper. ed. Paris, 1615. 

2 The commentary on the Epistles from which I quote, has 
been commonly attributed to St. Ambrose, but the researches of 
learned men have assigned its composition to Hilary. This 
writer had fallen into the schism of Lucifer bishop of Cagliari, 
but appears to have been reunited to the Church, as he speaks in 
very honourable terms of Pope Damasus. See Natalis Alexander, 
Hist. Eccl. saec. iv. c. vi. art. 14. 



60 



LETTER V. 



remarkable, from its refutation of the pretences on 
which the worship of created beings has been 
justified in ancient and modern times. Speaking 
of the heathen he says : " They are accustomed, in 
" order to cover the shame of neglecting God, to 
" use a miserable excuse, saying, that by them 
" [created beings] they can approach God, as we 

" approach a king by his ministers Come 

" then : Is any one so mad, so unmindful of his 
" safety, as to give the king's honour to a minister — 
" when, if any were even found treating on such a 
" matter, they would be justly condemned as guilty 
" of high treason ? And yet these men do not think 
" themselves guilty who give the honour of God's 
" name to a creature, and leaving the Lord adore 
" their fellow-servants ; as if there was any thing 
" more that could be reserved to God. For we 
£< approach the king by his ministers, because he 
" is only a man, and knows not to whom he may 
" entrust the state. But to propitiate God, from 
" whom nothing is hid, (for he knows what all 
" men deserve,) there is no need of any other 
" spokesman but a devout mind. Wheresoever 
" such an one shall speak to Him, he will answer 
" him a .' , 

It is evident from this, that the heathen did not 
intend to give the same honour to their deified 
men and to God: they regarded them as mediators, 

a Comment, in Epist. ad Rom. c. i. Inter Ambrosii Opera, t. ii a 
Appendix, p. 33. ed. Benedict. 



LETTER V. 



61 



or as greatly inferior to the Supreme Deity. This 
is distinctly stated indeed by Tertullian, 44 Many," 
he says, " dispose the Godhead so, as to acknow- 
" ledge that One has the empire or supreme 
" government, but that many are engaged in His 
" service; as Plato describes Jupiter in heaven 
" accompanied by an army of gods and spirits. " 
It would be easy to confirm the truth of this 
statement from Orosius, Celsus, Hierocles, and 
other heathen writers. It is evident therefore, 
that the heathen did not mean, any more than 
Romanists do, to give supreme honours to beings 
who were inferior to the One Deity. And yet the 
Fathers most strenuously resisted every act of ex- 
ternal worship offered to any being except God, on 
the broad principle which we also maintain, that 
religious worship of every sort is due only to the 
Creator — never to the creature. 

St. Ambrose says, " We read that nothing but 
*' God alone is to be adored, for it is written, 
t( ' Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him 
" only shalt thou serve V " St. Jerome, in describ- 
ing the worship of the Christians, speaks thus ; 
" We do not worship and adore (I do not say 
" merely) the relics of the martyrs, but not even 
" the Sun and Moon, the Angels or Archangels, the 
" Cherubim, Seraphim, or any name that is named 
" in this world or the world to come, lest we should 

b Ambros. de Spiritu Sancto, 1. iii. c. 11. Oper. t. ii. p. 680. 
ed. Benedict. 



62 LETTER V. 

" serve the creature more than the Creator, who is 
" blessed for ever. But we honour the relics of the 
" Martyrs, that we may adore Him whose Martyrs 
" they are c ." St. Gregory Nazianzen says, that 
the " one rule of piety is, to worship the Father, 
" the Son, and the Holy Ghost, the one Godhead 
" and Power in three Persons, honouring nothing 

" above or beneath God the former of which 

kt would be impossible, and the latter impious*." 
St. Hilary of Poictiers teaches the same truth : 
" You are not ignorant that religious devotion 
" towards a creature, is accursed^" St. Ambrose 
in another place uses expressions which come still 
more home to the question between us. " Without 
" doubt the Holy Ghost is to be adored, since He 
" also is to be adored, who, according to the flesh, 
" was born of the Spirit. And lest any one should 
" derive the same [adoration] to the Virgin Mary ; 
" Mary was the temple of God, but not the God of 
" the temple ; and therefore He only is to he adored 
" who operated in that temple f ." How completely 

c Hieronymi Epist. xxxvii. al. liii. ad Riparium, t. iv. pars ii. 
p. 279. Oper. ed. Benedict. 

d Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. xiv. Oper. t. i. p. 221. ed. Paris, 
1609. 

e Hilar. Pietav. de Trinitate, lib. viii. p. 963. Oper. ed.Benedict. 
Compare the note of the Benedictine Editors; who state that 
Ambrose, Basil, Athanasius, Nyssene, &c. employ this principle 
in their proofs of the Divinity of our Lord. 

f Ambros. de Spiritu Sancto, lib. iii. c. 11. p. 681. t. ii. ed. 
Bened. 



LETTER V. 



63 



this language of St. Ambrose overthrows all your 
argument in defence of Cardinal Bona's prayer. 
Theodoret is equally strict in refusing all religious 
worship to any but God : " We honour those men 
" who live virtuously, as most excellent men; but 
" we worship only the God and Father of all, and 
" his Word, and Holy Spirit 8 ." Epiphanius, like 
St. Ambrose, rejects the worship of the Virgin 
Mary and the Saints. " Which of the prophets 
" permitted a man (not to speak of a woman) to be 
" worshipped? For she (the Virgin) is indeed a 
" chosen vessel, but a ivoman, and in no respect 

" changed in nature But neither is Elias to 

" be worshipped, though amongst the living; nor 

" is John to be worshipped, neither is 

" Thecla, nor any of the Saints to be worshipped. 
" For that ancient error shall not prevail over us, 
" to forsake the living God, and to worship the 
" things that are made by Him, for 4 they served and 
" worshipped the creature above the Creator, and 
" became fools.' For if He will not have the Angels 
tl to be worshipped, how much more would he not 
" have (Mary) her that was born of Anna h ." St. 
Augustine also condemns your practice : " Let not 
" the worship of dead men" he says, " be our 
" religion ; for if they lived piously, they are not to 
" be supposed to seek for such honours, but they 

g Theodoret. Graecar. Affect. Sermo ii. p. 502. t. iv. Oper. ed. 
Sirmond. 

b Epiphan. Haeres. lxxix. torn. ii. Oper. ed. Petavii, p. 1062. 



64 



LETTER V. 



" wish Him to be worshipped by us, by whose 
" enlightening they rejoice that we are partners of 
" their merit. They are therefore to be honoured 

"for imitation, not worshipped for religion We 

64 honour them (the Angels) with love, not with 
" service ; nor do we build temples to them. For 
" they do not wish to be so honoured by us, because 
" they know that we ourselves, if we are good, are 
" temples of the high God. It is therefore rightly 
" written, (Rev. xxii. 9.) that a man was forbidden 
" by an angel that he should not worship him, but 
" God alone, under whom he was his fellow- 
" servant 

I shall not carry the proof from Tradition any 
further at present. From what has been said, it 
must be evident I think to any candid mind, that 
Catholic Antiquity entirely accords with us, in 
believing that all religious worship is due to the 
holy Trinity alone; and that it is unlawful to 
impart it, in any degree, to creatures ; that even the 
appearance of worshipping creatures is to be 
avoided ; that Angels, and Saints, and even the 
Virgin Mother of Christ our God, are to be loved 
and honoured indeed, but never worshipped or 
adored in any manner whatever ; either above God, 
or equally with God, or even less than God. 

II. " Ought prayer and praise only to be offered 

1 Augustin. de Vera Relig. c. Iv. t. i. Oper. ed. Benedict, 
p. 786, 787. 



LETTER V. 



65 



" to God and not to any creature ? Is it a species 
44 of sacrifice which is only due to the Deity ? And 
44 are we bound to place our hope, trust, and con- 
44 fidence in God only, and in no creature what- 
" ever?" 

These questions are immediately connected with 
that which has just been considered ; and all the 
sentiments of the Fathers which have been adduced, 
bear most directly on them ; for prayer, and praise, 
trust, and confidence, are all parts of inter- 
nal or external worship or adoration. If it be 
unlawful then to adore or worship creatures, it is 
equally unlawful to offer them religious prayer or 
praise, or to place hope and confidence in them. 
But I proceed to bring specific proofs from the 
Fathers, in confirmation of our doctrine, and in 
condemnation of the doctrine and practice so com- 
mon and so authorized in the Roman Commu- 
nion. 

I shall commence with St. Irenseus. " As the 
44 Church," he says, " has freely received from the 
" Lord, so does she freely minister ; nor does she 
" do any thing by invocation of Angels, nor by 
44 incantations, nor by any evil curiosity; but by 
44 directing her prayers cleanly, and purely, and 
44 openly, to the Lord who made all things, and 
<( calling on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ k ." 
It is evident from this, that St. Irenaeus thought it 

k Irenaeus, adv. Hasres. L ii. c. xxxii. ech Benedict, p. 166. 

E 



66 



LETTER V. 



unlawful to pray to Angels or any created being. 
St. Clement of Alexandria is equally explicit : " It 
" is," he says, " the extreme of ignorance to ask 
" from those who are not Gods, as though they 

" were Gods Whence, since there is only 

" one good God, both we ourselves and the Angels 
" supplicate from Him alone, that some good things 
" might be given to us, and that others might 
" remain with us 1 ." That prayer is a sacrifice due 
to God, is taught by the same Father in the follow- 
ing terms : " We do not without cause honour God 
" by prayer, and with righteousness send up this 
" best and holiest sacrifice™ " It is also maintained 
by Tertullian, thus : " We Christians pray for all 

" rulers a long life, a secure government 

" These things I cannot ask in prayer from any other 
" except Him from whom I know that I shall 
" obtain; both because He is the one who alone 
" grants, and I am the one whom it behoveth to 
" obtain by prayer ; being his servant, who looks to 
u Him alone, who for his religion am put to death, 
" who offer to Him a rich and a greater sacrifice 
" which He hath commanded — even prayer pro- 
" ceeding from a chaste body, from a harmless 
" soul, from a holy spirit"." 

" If," said Athenagoras, " we lift up pure hands 
" to Him (God), what need is there of a hecatomb? 

1 Clemens Alexandr. Stromata, lib. vii. p. 853. ed. Potteri. 

m Stromata, lib. vii. p. 848. See also p. 850. 

B Tertull. Apologet. c. 30. p. 27. Oper. ed. Rigaltii. 



LETTER V. 



67 



What have 1 to do with burnt offerings, 
" which God does not require, though it be neces- 
" sary to offer to Him a bloodless sacrifice, and a 
" reasonable service ?" 

The sacrifices of prayer and praise were then 
only to be offered up to God ; as Origen expressly 
says. " Every prayer, and supplication, and inter- 
" cession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up unto 
M God who is above all, through the High Priest 
" who is above all angels, the living Word and 

M God For it is not reasonable that those 

" who do not comprehend the knowledge of 
44 Angels, which is beyond men, should invoke 
" them. And even supposing that their know- 
" ledge, which is somewhat marvellous and secret^ 
" were comprehended ; this very knowledge, de- 
" claring their nature and the things over which 
" they are appointed, would not permit us to pre- 
" sume to pray to any other but unto God, the Lord 
" over all, who is sufficient for all, through our 
"Saviour, the Son of God p ." Nothing can be 
more conclusive — more decisively condemnatory of 
the practice of Romanists. 

In another place Origen confirms our view very 
strongly : ft To those who place their confidence in 
" the Saints, we fitly produce as an example, 
" 'Cursed is the man which hopeth in man;' 
" and again, 1 Do not put your trust in man 

Athenagoras, ubi supra, p. 13. 

p Origen. cont. Celsurn, lib. v. p. 580. t. i. Oper. ed. Delarue. 
E 2 



68 



LETTER V. 



" and another, ' It is better to trust in the Lord 
" than in princes.' If it be necessary to put our 
" trust in any one, Let us leave all others, and hope 
4< in the Lord* " 

Novatian, presbyter of the Roman Church in the 
middle of the third century, argues, as many of the 
Fathers have done, that Christ is God, because He 
is every where invoked. " If Christ be only man," 
he says, 44 how is He present, being invoked every 
" where, since it is not the nature of man but of 
4 ' God to be present in every place ? ... If Christ 
<4 be only man, why is hope reposed in Him, when 
*' hope in man is said to be accursed r ?" Had 
Invocation of Saints been practised at that time 
in the Church, Novatian could not have argued 
thus ; because the immediate answer would have 
been, that Christ was invoked as a man, even as 
the Saints were. But his argument is directly 
opposed to any calling on created beings. 

The doctrine of St. Athanasius is also strongly 
opposed to you. 44 It is written, 4 Be my pro- 
44 tecting God, my house of refuge, and save me,' 

q Horn. iv. in Ezechiel, p. 373. t. iii. The Latin translation, 
from which the above passage is taken, was made by St. Jerome- 

r Novatianus, De Trinitate, c. xiv. This Treatise was fre- 
quently attributed to Tertullian or Cyprian, even in the time of 
St. Jerome, as he remarks, Catalog. Script. Eccl. c. 81, and 
Apolog. cont. Ruffin. lib. ii. Natalis Alexander has shewn that 
the doctrine of this Treatise is sound. Hist. Eccl. Ssec. ii. Dissert, 
xi. art. iv. 



LETTER V. 



69 



" and ' the Lord was the refuge of the poor,' and 
" whatever things of the same sort are found in 
" Scripture. But if they say that these things are 
" spoken of the Son, which would perhaps be true, 
" let them confess, that the Saints did not think of 
" calling on a created being to be their helper and 
' fc house of refuge 5 ." Compare this with the prayer 
addressed to the Virgin by Cardinal Bona, and 
those to the Virgin and Joseph which have been 
produced. 

It is really hard to imagine, how, in the face of 
such sentiments, Romanists can dare to appeal to 
Catholic Antiquity in justification of their idola- 
trous prayers to created beings. You have, how- 
ever, explained what might otherwise have been 
hard to account for. You have demonstrated, that 
Romanism depends for its justification on forged 
and spurious compositions. You have proved, that 
it is still necessary to resort to such dishonest 
arts ; that men of literary character like yourself 
are obliged to cling to them, in the desperate 
effort to support a bad and a feeble cause. It is 
in this way that your unhappy followers are de- 
ceived, blinded, and ruined. 

We affirm with all the Fathers, that prayer is 
only to be offered to God. Look through their 
pages, and you will find that this doctrine enters 
into their very notion of prayer. " Prayer is a 



8 Athanasii Orat. i. cont. Arianos, torn. i. p. 466. ed. Benedict. 



70 



LETTER V. 



" request of some good thing made by pious men 
" to God," says St. Basil*. It is " a discoursing 
" with God" according to St. Gregory Nyssene 11 — 
" a colloquy with God" according to St. John 
Chrysostom x — " an ascension of the mind to God, 
" or a request of fit things from God" according 
to John Damascenus y . Could any of these Fathers 
have prayed to Saints? The thing is wholly im- 
possible. 

We have heard the doctrine of St. Athanasius : 
let us now attend to that of one of his successors, 
St. Theophilus of Alexandria. " How shall they 
" call on Him in whom they have not believed? 
" It is necessary in the first place to believe that 
" the Son of God is, in order that calling on Him 
" be right and reasonable ; and as he who is not 
" God is not to be adored, so, on the other hand, 
" He that is God, is to be adored z ." Here we see 
that invoking or " calling on" any one by prayer, 
is a part of adoration, and as such is due to God 
only. Hilary, Deacon of Rome, in commenting on 
the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians, 

1 Basil. Orat. in Julitiam Martyr. Oper. t. ii. p. 33. ed. Bene- 
dict. 

u Nyssen. Orat. ii. de Oratione Dom. Oper. ii. 724. 
* Chrysost. Orat. ii. de Orat. 

y Damascenus, De Fide Orthodox, lib. iii. c. 24. Oper. t. i. 
p. 248. 

z Theophil. Alexandrinus, Paschal, ii. p. 718. t. iv. Bibl. Patr. 

Colon. 1618. 



LETTER V. 



71 



says, that the Apostle " in the beginning declared 
44 how great and infinite is the Almighty greatness 
" of Christ, that He might instruct us, that hope is 
" only to be placed in Him ; because all things are 
" his, and because nothing can exist without Him, 
" neither in heaven nor in earth. ' For He is 
" before all things, and by Him all things consist, 
" because He hath the preeminence in all things 
" so that if any one thinks that he ought to be 
" devoted to any of the Angels, or elements, or 
4 4 powers, let him know that he is in error V 
This was the language of the fourth century. Now 
we hear of nothing but " devotion to the Virgin 
44 and the Saints" — 44 trust" and " hope" in their 
power. What was impious in the fourth century, 
is now obtruded upon us as Catholic and laudable. 

So strictly did the Catholic Church in primitive 
times adhere to the Apostolic tradition, that in the 
Eucharist, prayer was not even to be directed to 
the second or third Persons of the blessed Trinity. 
The third Council of Carthage, at which St. 
Augustine was present, decreed, that 44 At the 
" Altar prayer should always be directed to the 
44 Father, and whatever prayers are composed by 
44 any one, he may not use till he has submitted 
" them to the examination of the more learned 
" brethren 1 *." Thus jealous was the Catholic 

a Hilar, in Coloss. i. p. 266, Ambrosii Opera, t. ii. pars ii. ed. 
Ben. 

b Concil. Carthag. iii. c. xxiii. Labbaei Concilia., t. ii. col. 1 170, 



72 



LETTER V. 



Church of the prerogatives of the Father, to whom 
our Lord had directed us to address our prayers 
in His name. " Verily, verily, I say unto you, 
" Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, 

" He will give it you At that day ye shall 

44 ask in my name ; and I say not unto you, that I 
" will pray the Father for you; for the Father 
" Himself loveth you." (John xvi. 24, 26, 27.) 
And if our prayers are generally to be directed to the 
Father, instead of to the Son or the Holy Spirit — 
if even in the Trinity itself, where there is the 
same Godhead in three Persons, the priority of the 
Father is to be practically recognised in our worship ; 
how much greater becomes the sin of those who 
worship and pray to mere creatures, as they would 
to the Supreme Fountain and First Principle of ail 
things. 

The practice of Romanists in praying to Angels 
was first invented by a sect in the fourth century, 
who for the purpose of exercising this unlawful 
worship, held private meetings separate from those 
of the Catholic Church, in which it was not per- 
mitted. The Council of Laodicea, the decrees of 
which were received and approved by the whole 
Church, condemned this sect in the following 
terms: "Christians ought not to forsake the 
" Ciurch of God, and depart, and call on angels, 
"and make meetings; which are forbidden. If 
" anv one therefore be found giving himself to 
" this hidden idolatry. Let him be Anathema , 



LETTER V. 73 

" because he hath left our Lord Jesus Christ the 
" Son of God,, and hath betaken himself to 
" idolatry' " Prayers to Angels are forbidden in 
this decree, but the same principle applies equally 
to all prayers to created beings. Prayers to 
Angels and Saints were therefore in the judgment 
of the Catholic Church of the fourth century, 
idolatrous; and yet you adopt and defend those 
prayers without any scruple. 

The Adoration of the Virgin was also introduced 
about the same time, and was regarded as a heresy 
by the Catholic Church. It commenced in Arabia 
about A. D. 373, and seems to have given rise to 
an opposite heresy, that of the Antidicomarians, 
who spoke irreverently of the blessed Virgin. We 
learn that the sinful and misguided persons who 
adopted this new worship, made offerings of cakes 
to the Virgin at particular times of the year, from 
which they were called Collyridians, (a word which 
signified the nature of their offering.) There is no 
evidence that they separated from the Church or 
its worship, or refused to worship God, or regarded 
the Virgin as equal to God. They are not accused 
of this by any writer. They, however, offered 
external worship to the Virgin, and were therefore 

Concil. Laodicen. Can. xxxv. Beveregii Pandect. Canon, t. i. 
p. 468. This heresy is referred to by Epiphanius, Hseres. Ix, 
Oper. t. ii. p. 505. and by St. Augustine. Lib. de Haeres. n. xxxix. 
t. viii. p. 1 1. Oper. ed. Ben. ; and it seems to have become extinct 
in a short time. 



74 



LETTEIt V. 



regarded as heretics. St. Epiphanius has refuted 
this heresy, and at the same time furnished the 
strongest arguments against Romanists, in a work 
from which the following extracts are made. — 

" The body of Mary was holy indeed, but she 
" was not God. She was a Virgin and honoured, 
" but not proposed to us to be worshipped, but as 
tc worshipping Him who, born of her flesh, had 
" descended from Heaven and from his Father's 
%i bosom. Therefore the Gospel warned us before- 
" hand, in which Christ thus speaketh, ' What 
Xi have I to do with thee, woman? my hour is not 
" yet come,' in order that from this expression, 
" ' What have I to do with thee, woman ?' none 
" might think the holy Virgin more excellent (in 
" nature) .... none might by excessively admiring 
" the Saint, fall into this folly of heresy*. Which 
" of the prophets ever permitted a man to be 
"worshipped, not to speak of a woman*? Let 
" Mary be in honour, but let Father, Son, and 
" Holy Spirit be worshipped: let no one worship 
" Mary. That service is not enjoined by God ; I say 
" not to a woman, but even to a man. Not even 
" the Angels are worthy of such honours. . . . Let 
" no one taste of that error concerning the holy 
" Mary, for although the tree be beautiful, it is 
c< not good for food ; and although Mary is most 
" excellent, and holy, and worthy of honour, yet 

11 Epiphan. Haeres. lxxix> t. ii. Oper, p. 1061. 
' p. 1062. 



LETTER V. 



75 



" she is not to be worshipped Let such 

" women (as worship her) be silenced by Jeremiah, 
" and no longer disturb the world. Let them not 
" say, ' We honour the Queen of Heaven*.' Let 
" Mary be in honour. Let the Lord be worship- 
66 ped. For the righteous afford to no one an 
" occasion of errors" 

To speak of the blessed Virgin as a woman, in 
the way which St. Epiphanius here does, would be 
regarded by many Romanists as little less than 
blasphemous. If indeed those magnificent titles 
which they bestow on her (amongst which is that 
very one of " Queen of Heaven," here reprehended 
by St. Epiphanius) be rightly and piously applied, 
it must be disrespectful to speak of her as "a 
" woman." 

III. " Is it necessary to ask for the intercession 
" of Saints and Angels with God, or is it better to 
" approach the throne of God with our own 
" prayers, relying with confidence on the inter- 
" cession of the Great High Priest Jesus Christ ?" 

Our belief is in this case also confirmed by the 
voice of Catholic tradition, and the practice and 
opinions of Romanists approximate to those of the 
heathen and heretics, against whom the holy 
Fathers contended. 

You have quoted (p. 64.) Valerian, Bishop of 
Cemela, A.D. 450, as urging the necessity of 



f p. 1062, 



8 p. 1066. 



76 



LETTER V, 



having recourse to the Saints, because " it is the 
" only way to secure the favour of God." " What 
" place of pardon will there be," he says, " if you 
" know not how to entreat the friends of the king?''' 

I have not examined into the genuineness of this 
piece — but admitting it to be genuine, I maintain, 
that the doctrine here advanced was not that of the 
Catholic Church. 

The heathen, as we learn from the example of 
Celsus, defended their worship and prayers addressed 
to Angels or Spirits, by representing that we ought 
to put our trust in them because they were ministers 
of God. To this Origen replies: " Away with the 
" advice of Celsus, saying that we should pray to 
" Angels, and let it not be heard for a moment. 
" For we must pray to God alone who is above all, 
" and we must pray to the only-begotten Word of 
" God, ( the first-born of all creatures,' and we 
" must entreat Him, as a high-priest, to offer up our 
"prayers to his God and our God h . We must 
" endeavour to please God alone, who is above all 
" things, and labour to have Him propitious to us, 
" procuring His good will by godliness and all 
" kinds of virtue. And if Celsus will yet have us 
" to procure the good will of any others after Him 
" that is God over all ... . having God, favourable 
" to us, who is over all, it follows that we shall 
" have all His friends both Angels and Spirits 

II Origen. cont. Celsum, I. viii. p. 760. t. i. Oper. ed. Benedict. 



LETTER V. 



77 



" loving unto us To whom we offer our first- 
44 fruits, to Him also do we send our prayers, 
4 4 having a great High Priest that is entered into 
44 the heavens. . . . But if we have a desire towards 
" a multitude [of Saints, Angels, &c] whom we 
44 wish to be favourable unto us, we learn that 
44 4 thousand thousands stand by Him,'&c. . . . who 
4 4 labour together for the salvation of those who 
44 call upon God, and pray lawfully 

I have already quoted the answer of Hilary the 
Deacon to the argument for the necessity of ap- 
pealing to creatures in order to propitiate God. 
St. John Chrysostom speaks still more distinctly. 
" It is often impossible to present our gift imme- 
44 diately unto the masters themselves,, and to con- 
" verse with them, but it is necessary first to obtain 
44 the favour of their ministers and stewards .... 
44 But with God it is not so, for there is no need of 
44 intercessors for the petitioners, nor is He so ready to 
44 give a gracious answer, being entreated by others, 
44 as by our own selves praying unto Him 1 . Amongst 
44 men .... it is required that he should flatter all 
44 those that are about the Prince .... but here 
44 there is no need of any thing save of a watchful 
44 mind only, and there is nothing that hindereth 
44 us from being near to God m ." 44 God does most 
44 when we do not ask of others. As a kind friend, 

i P. 789. 
k P. 766. 

1 Cited by Damascenus, Sacra Parallela, t. ii. Oper. p. 466. 
1,1 Chrysost. in Psal. iv\ t. v. p. 8. ed, Benedict. 



78 



LETTER V. 



" he blameth us most, as not having courage to trust 
" in his love, when we entreat others to pray to Him 
" for us n . We do not therefore so pacify Him 
" when we entreat Him by others, as when we do 
" it by cur own selves ." Damascenus, in the 
eighth century, adopts these sentiments. " Mark 
" the philosophy of the woman of Canaan. She 
" entreats not James, she beseeches not John, 
cc neither does she come to Peter, but broke through 
" the whole company. I have no need of a 
" mediator, but taking repentance as my spokes- 
" man, I come to the Fountain-head itself. For 
" this cause did He descend, for this cause did He 
" take flesh, that I might have the boldness to 

" speak unto Him I have no need of a 

" mediator: H^ve mercy on me p ." This is even 
the language of Theophylact, Metropolitan of 
Bulgaria in the eleventh century. Speaking of the 
woman of Canaan: " Observe," he says, "that 
" although the Saints pray for us as the Apostles 
" did for her, yet we praying for ourselves, prevail 
" much more' 1 ." These authorities are sufficient to 
shew that the ancient Church did not believe it 
necessary to use the Saints as mediators with God, 
and that they held it much safer and more pious to 
approach God with our own prayers, confiding in 
the intercession of Jesus Christ. 

" Horn, xxxvi. in Act. Apost. t. ix. p. 278. 

Expos, in Ps. iv t. v. p. 9. 

p Cited by Damascenus, Oper. t. ii. p. 467. 

* Theophylact. Comment, in Matt. c. xv. p. 89. ed. Paris, 1631. 



LETTER V. 



79 



IV. " Is it lawful to unite the name of God with 
" that of His creatures in prayer, and to offer the 
" same acts of homage to both at the same time?" 

In proof of the unlawfulness of this practice, I 
shall only adduce the language of the great Atha- 
nasius. " No one," he says, " would pray to 
" receive any thing from the Father and the Angels, 
" or from any of the other creatures. Nor would 
" any one say, ' God and the Angel give thee.' " 
In reply to the objection derived from Jacob's 
language, Gen. xlviii. 15, 16. " The God which 

' 1 fed me from my youth the Angel which 

" delivered me, &c." Athanasius says, " He did 
" not couple one of the created beings, and by nature 
" Angels, with God who created them .... but in 
' ' saying, ' which delivered me from all evils,' he 
" shewed that it was not any of the created Angels, 
" but the Word of God, whom he coupled with 
" God and prayed unto r ." I need not produce 
any further evidence. Compare this with your 
indulgenced prayer, " Jesus, Joseph, and Mary, 
" assist me in my last agony.'' 

I have produced but a small portion of the 
evidence which may be brought from Christian 
Antiquity in refutation of your doctrines and prac- 
tice on this subject. What has been said, however, 
will I trust be sufficient for the vindication of the 

r Athanasii Orat. iii. cont. Arianos, t. i. p. 566. 



so 



LETTER V. 



early Fathers from the imputations of superstition 
and idolatry which your pamphlet tends to fix upon 
them. Their doctrines stand out in bold relief, 
against the heathenish corruptions which Romanism 
sanctions and defends. 

§. 6. Additional proofs of Romish Idolatry and 
Superstition. 

We have now sufficiently seen what the doctrine of 
the Catholic Fathers is on the subject of the worship 
of creatures. Let us contrast it with the doctrines 
and practice of Romanism. I can only afford space 
for a very few citations from your popular books of 
devotion, but they will afford a fair specimen of the 
remainder. 

Your admired saint Alphonsus de Liguori shall 
speak first. 

" From the moment that Mary consented to become 
the Mother of God," says St. Bernardine of Sienna, " she 
merited to receive sovereignty over all creatures." " Mary 
and Jesus having but one and the same flesh," says St. 
Arnand, abbot, " why should not the Mother enjoy, 
conjointty with the Son, the honours of royalty." Mary 
is then Queen of the Universe, since Jesus is its King : 
thus, as St. Bernardine again observes, 66 As many crea- 
tures as obey God, so many obey the glorious Virgin \" 
" I am," said she, to St. Bridget, " the Queen of heaven 

* The Glories of Mary, Mother of God, translated from the 
Italian of Saint Alphonsus Liguori by a Catholic Priest. Third 
Edition, Dublin, Coyne, 1837. 



LETTER V. 



81 



and Mother of Mercy" — I am 4< the joy of the just, and 
the gate through which sinners go to God." (p. 22.) 
44 Queen of heaven and earth ! Mother of God ! my 
Sovereign mistress ! I present myself before you as a poor 
mendicant before a mighty Queen, (p. 29.) No grace, no 
pardon, emanates from the throne of the King of kings 
without passing through the hands of Mary, according to 
St. Bernard. The plenitude of Grace is found in Jesus 
Christ as the head, whence it flows to Mary, who commu- 
nicates it to all his members, (p. 121.) No doubt, Jesus 
the Man-God, alone sufficed to effect our redemption; 
but it was more convenient that both sexes having con- 
curred to our ruin, both should conspire to save us. 
Albertus Magnus styles Mary 4 the coadjutrix of our 
redemption P (p. 128.) All is subject to Mary's 
empire, even God Himself ! . . . . Jesus has rendered 
Mary omnipotent: the one is omnipotent by nature, the 
other is omnipotent by grace, (p. 138 ) St. Germanus 
says to Mary, 4 You, O holy Virgin, have over God the 
authority of a mother > and hence you obtain pardon for 
the most obdurate sinners ' (p. 141.) It is impossible 
that a true servant of Mary should be damned, (p. 165.) 
4 My soul, 1 says the blessed Eric Suzon, 4 is in the hands 
of Mary, so if the Judge wishes to condemn me, the 
sentence must pass through this clement Queen, and she 
well knows how to prevent its execution, (p. 171.) O 
Jesus ! O Mary ! may your names live in my heart . . . 
O Mary ! my Mother ! when my last hour shall come, 
when my soul shall be at the eve of its departure from the 
world, grant I beseech you, that my last words may be, 
Jesus, Mary, 1 love you. Jesus, Mary, I give you my 
heart and my soul. Amen." (p. 205.) 

My next extracts shall be from " the New 

F 



82 



LETTER V. 



" Month of Mary," published last year with the 
formal approbation of authority fc . 

" Thou art the only hope of sinners. Through thee do 
we hope for pardon of our sins ; and in thee, O most 
blessed Lady, is the expectation of our rewards, (p. 42.) 
Recite the Acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, to-day, in 
honour of Mary, and make this one of the devotions which 
you will resolve to practise in her honour, (p. 121.) In all 
the infirmities of the body, and all the maladies of the 
soul, be thou, O Mary, my refuge and my relief. Num- 
berless are the sick who through thee have recovered 
health. Relying on thy power and goodness, I fly to 
thee, and implore thee to heal my infirmities, and obtain 
for me perfect health of body and of soul, that I may be 
the better able to serve thee and thy Divine Son. (p. 146.) 
O heavenly Queen, thou dost excel the highest of the 
Angelic host in merit, in grace, and in holiness. All 
heavenly spirits bow down before thee, and praise and 
glorify thee." (p. 168.) 

The next extracts shall be made from " Devotion 
44 to the holy Angels from the French of Boudon. 
" Dublin, 1837." 

" The Virgin Mary 4 being the august Empress of 
Paradise,"' the Angels are her subjects, and consider it a 
great honour to be obedient to her laws. (p. 44.) It is 
most useful to perform a Novena in honour of the Angels. 

1 The New Month of Mary, principally designed for the 
Month of May, by the Very Rev. P. R. Kenrick, Dolman, 
London, 1841. Approved, April 25, 1841, by " F. P. Kenrick, 
Bp. Arath. and Coadj. of Bp. Philadelphia." 



LETTER V. 



83 



It may be as follows; the first day honour the 

Angels of the last choir by some prayer — nine Gloria 
Patris for example — and ask them for the grace or favour 
you want ; and thus ascend to all the choirs successively. 

On the first day ask the Angels to obtain for you a 

lively faith ; on the second, beg of the Archangels holy 
zeal ; on the third, honour the Principalities, and beg the 
extinction of the reign of sin. (p. 62.) Tuesday in each 
week . . . should be sacred to the Angelic devotion, (p. 62.) 
If we would be truly devout to the Angels, we should 
once for all take the resolution of avoiding deliberate 
faults and imperfections, of searching out and overcoming 
our predominant passion .... Endeavour every day to 
sacrifice some inclination of yours in honour of the Angels, 
(p. 69.) It was proposed to form an Association for the 
purpose [of worshipping the Angels], each member of 
which would successively honour the Angels in the name 
of the rest — and thus a continual homage would be 
rendered to these blessed Spirits, (p. 71.) [The Pope 
granted Indulgences in favour of this Association, p. 71.] 
Some persons devout to the holy Angels .... wished to 
dedicate to these holy Spirits a whole month — that of 
October. They during that period perform the following 
practices &c O, all ye holy Angels .... I your un- 
worthy servant, present and offer you all the practices of 
this month, consecrated to you, not only as a means of 
obtaining, {here specify your request,) but also as a repara- 
tion for my past ingratitude, and that of all men. (p. 75.) 
[After this follow, < The Little Office of the Holy Angels; 
Hymns to the Angels, Litany of the Saints who have 
been specially favoured by the Angels ; Beads of the holy 
Angels ; Litany of the holy Angels ; Litany of the Angel 
Guardian/ &c.]" 



84 



LETTER V. 



I extract the following from " Reflections on the 
" prerogatives, power, and protection of Saint 
" Joseph .... with special devotions to that most 
" glorious Patriarch. London, 1825." 

" He must be looked on as his (Jesus') legitimate 
parent, and entitled in all things to the right of paternity, 
except that of generation, which, according to Rupertus 
Abbas, the eternal Father supplied, by infusing into the 
husband of Mary a paternal love for her Son Jesus, (p. 6.) 
The illuminated St. Theresa of Jesus . . . (said,) I have 
seen clearly, that this Father and Lord of mine, St. Joseph, 
hath drawn me, as well out of this necessity, being crippled 
with sickness, as out of others greater, when there was 
question of honour and loss of my soul. (p. 37.) This 
glorious Saint brings also whole provinces and nations to 
the Catholic faith. New France owns him as the pro- 
pagator of His gospel whose legal parent he was. (p. 64.) 
The universal practice of honouring our holy Patriarch, is 
to recite his little office, his litanies, hymn, and prayer, 
either daily or for a set time. (p. 72.) There are several 
other ways of honouring him, as to say the beads, to wear 

rings with his name engraved others have on their 

rings Jesus. Maria, Joseph, (p. 85.) O holy Joseph . . . 
I N. N. in the presence of Jesus and Mary, do from this 
moment choose you for my Lord and Master, (p. 89.) 
[After this follows the office of St. Joseph, or worship of 
him seven times in the day, The Litany of St. Joseph, a 
Hymn in his honour, Beads of St. Joseph, Seven Prayers 
to St. Joseph in honour of his seven dolours, Eight Medi- 
tations on his Life.]" 

The following extracts are taken from " The 
" imitation of the blessed Virgin, composed on the 



LETTER V. 



85 



<c plan of the imitation of Christ, From the French. 
" Dublin, Coyne, 1836." 

" Thou art truly become the Queen of the world, as well 
as the Queen of Heaven . . . O Virgin Mother, the highest 
in grace and perfection among the Angels, deserves only 
to rank among thy servants ; so great is the distance 
between him and thee. (p. 268.) I comprehend that in 
that quality (Mother of Jesus) thou hast a sort of right 
over all the treasures of grace .... Who can comprehend 
the elevation of thy dignity ? Ail is so great and eminent 
in the Mother of God, that the Seraphims themselves can 
only admire it. (p. 269.) At the sight of thy greatness 
and sublime elevation, I am seized with religious fear and 
respect, which, as it were, annihilates me at thy feet, 
(p. 270.) He (God) has given her a sort of superintend- 
ence over His treasures, and it is through her that He is 
pleased to distribute them to us." (p. 289.) 

I quote the following from " The glories of Saint 
" Joseph, chiefly taken from the French of Rev. 
" Father Paul Barrie. Dublin, 1835." 

" As God the Son is the Redeemer of mankind, so St. 
Joseph is his coadjutor in this great work, since he employs 
all his cares ... to gain wherewithal to nourish and main- 
tain our merciful Redeemer. Lastly, as the Holy Ghost 
is the spouse of Mary the Mother of God, so St. Joseph 
is also her spouse. What, therefore, can be a greater 
subject of jealousy to the Angels than this ? (p. 25.) The 
learned and devout Gerson says, that if the first rank or 
hierarchy in heaven is that of the Father, Son, and Holy 
Ghost ; so the second is this of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph ; 
and that all other Saints are of a lower rank, and of a 



86 



LETTER V. 



different hierarchy. These other great Saints hold, in- 
deed, the first place in their rank and hierarchy, according 
to the ordinary law of love ; but not in that of the order 
of the Hypostatical union, and in the mystery of the 
Incarnation, wherein those are only comprised, who most 
nearly relate to Jesus and Mary: namely, St. Joseph, who 
completes this created Trinity." (p. 39, 40.) 

The following passages are extracted from " A 
" Short Treatise on the Antiquity, &c. of the Con- 
" fraternity of our blessed Lady of Mount Carmel. 
" Dublin, 1838." 

" Another benefit or privilege of this Confraternity of the 
Scapular, is contained in these words : he that dieth in- 
vested with this habit shall not suffer eternal fire : which 
is as much as to say, that the Scapular is a great help 
in order to obtain eternal felicity, (p. 43.) St. Anselm 
saith, There is no doubt but the blessed Virgin Mary, by 
maternal right, is with Christ, president of heaven and 
earth. St. John Damascene saith, it is fitting and con- 
venient that Mary should possess what is her Son's 

She being really Mother of the Word incarnated, there is 
in all propriety due to her a certain power ; or as others 
say, a dominion over all things, as well spiritual as tempo- 
ral, to which the authority of her Son doth extend itself. 
So that she had by natural right of maternity, a, power 
almost like that of her Son. (p. 49.) Purify my heart, O 
immaculate Virgin, from every sin, .... purge this soul of 
its affection for earthly and sinful goods, and raise it to the 
love of celestial and heavenly blessings." (p. 74.) 

I need not carry this proof any further. The 
passages which I have selected are taken almost at 



LETTER V. 



87 



random from a few of your books of popular 
devotion, and furnish but an imperfect specimen 
of the real state of religious worship amongst 
Romanists. I am obliged to refrain from citing- 
similar passages from numbers of books now lying 
before me. I cannot afford space for describing 
the multiplicity of your acts of worship and adora- 
tion to the Virgin, the Saints, and Angels — The 
special months devoted to their daily worship — 
The repetition of hymns, prayers, and litanies to 
them seven times in the day — The vows made to 
them — The Eucharist offered to their honour — 
Acts of faith, hope, and charity, the reception of 
the holy Eucharist, almsgiving, all the works of 
religion done to please them — Offerings of gifts 
to them — Confraternities for the purpose of wor- 
shipping them, supported by Papal Indulgences — 
Confession made to them conjointly with God — 
The ascription of all the titles and prerogatives 
of the Creator to his creatures. How deplorable, 
how awful, is this scene of superstition and idolatry ! 
And how fearful a contrast does it present to the 
religion of Scripture and of Antiquity ! Can no- 
thing awaken the conscience of Romanists to a 
sense of what is due to God ? 

I can only adduce one more passage in illus- 
tration of your religious system. It is taken from 
the writings of Alphonsus de Liguori, your favourite 
Saint, and describes the mode in which those who 
are in their last agony are to be aided by the priest. 



88 



LETTER V. 



" When the sick man comes to his agony, let the 
Priest employ the usual arms of the Church in his assist- 
ance. 1. Let him often sprinkle him with blessed water, 
especially if he is troubled by diabolical temptations. . . . 
2. Let him fortify him with the sign of the cross, and bless 
him, saying, ' God the Father who created thee bless 
thee, &c.' .... 3. Let him frequently give him the image 
of our Saviour and of Mary to kiss. 4. Let him take care 
that the sick person gains all the Indulgences that he can, 
and especially receives benediction in the article of death, 

with plenary indulgence granted by Benedict XIV 

5. Let him suggest some sentiment of grief, conformity, 
hope in the passion of God and the intercession of S. 
Mary. .... 6. Let him endeavour that the names of Jesus 
and Mary be very frequently invoked, at least mentally, 
and the prayer, ' Mary, mother of grace,' be said. 7. In 
the last agony let him cause the bystanders to say many 
litanies of the Virgin Mary for the sick man. It is 
desirable to procure the bell of the agony to be rung. . . . 
8. As the time of expiring draws near, let the Priest with 
a mournful voice and bended knees recite the accustomed 
prayers of the Church, ' Go forth, &c.' ... 9. (Directions 
as to handling the sick person.) 10. When he is near 
death, let him give him a blessed candle, and thus profess 
that he dies in the faith. 11. While he is yet sensible, it 
will be advisable to give him Absolution frequently, after a 

short reconciliation Let him admonish him often to 

call on the names of Jesus and Mary u . 

* c When the sick man is near expiring, the [following] 
acts should be recited without pausing and in a loud voice 
[by the Priest]. 

u Ligorio, Theologia Moralis, t» ix. p. 175. (Praxis Confessarii, 
n. 276.) 



LETTER V. 



89 



" Lord Jesu, receive my spirit. My God, help me, per- 
mit me to come and love thee for ever. My Jesus, my 
Love, I love thee. I repent. I wish that I had never offended 
thee ! O Mary, my hope, help me, pray for me to Jesus. 
My Jesus, for thy passion save me. I love thee ! Mary, 
my mother, in this hour help me. St. Joseph, help me. 
Archangel Michael, defend me. Guardian Angel, guard 
me. Saint N. (here let the principal protector of the sick 
man be named) commend me to Jesus Christ. Saints of 
God, intercede for me. Jesus, Jesus, Jesus. Jesus and 
Mary, I give my heart and my soul to you* !" 



I should only injure the effect of this most awful 
scene by offering any comments : I leave it to 
the reflections of the Reader. May the last hours 
of those he loves have other consolations — and 
peace. 



On the remainder of your Pamphlet I can at 
present only make one or two remarks 5 ', The 

x lb. p. 178, 179. 

y I would refer an anonymous Correspondent to my Treatise 
on the Church, Part ii. c. xi. objections x. and xi. It can never, 
under any circumstances, be lawful to profess what is false or 
deny what is true. The wish for union may however exist ; 
and may be lawful, even where great corruptions are visible, 
provided there is no intention of uniting in those corruptions, 
but rather an intention of protesting against them. 

G 



90 



LETTER V. 



passages which you have adduced (p. 79, 80.) 
in support of the doctrine of Purgatory do not 
relate to it. They shall be examined in ray next 
Letter. I shall also have an opportunity of con- 
sidering your remarks on Indulgences. I did not 
mean to deny your veracity as you suppose, (p. 84,) 
in calling for sufficient evidence of a fact, and 
implying that " others might have been able to 
" give a somewhat different account. " I merely 
meant, that what you did not think superstitious 
might have appeared in a widely different point 
of view to others. With reference to your ob- 
servation (p. 4.) that my denial of your ordination 
was irrelevant, I must say that it was highly 
relevant in a controversy between you and me ; 
because, had I admitted your assumed title of 
bishop, it would have been necessary to address 
you in a tone of great respect. You have hinted 
that my style is uncourteous : I confess that I 
have not treated you with any ceremony, because 
I do not recognise Romish ordinations in these 
countries 2 , and am unwilling to place them on a 
level with those of the Catholic Church in England. 
If there has been any apparent uncourteousness in 
the tone of these Letters, it has not, I assure you, 
arisen from any desire to inflict pain ; for to 
yourself personally, I can have no feeling but 

z See Treatise on the Church of Christ, Part vi. chap, xi ; 
Episcopacy Defended against Wiseman, Sect, xviii. 



LETTER V. 91 

that of good-will. It is intended to apply to 
you only in your official capacity, as Vicar 
Apostolic and pretended bishop. 

I remain, Sir, 

Your obedient Servant, 

WILLIAM PALMER. 

Oxford, June 8, 1841. 



NOTE. 

A layman of the Romish persuasion, calling himself Verax, 
has published a Letter to me on the worship of the Virgin 
Mary, in which the Fathers are quoted copiously in justifica- 
tion of the prayers to which attention was drawn in my First 
Letter. This gentleman has prevented me from noticing his 
proofs more particularly, by omitting to annex references to 
his quotations. I observe, however, that many of them are 
derived from spurious productions, and in particular, a long 
passage purporting to be from S. Augustine (Sermo 18, de 
Sanctis), on which this writer, and Mr. Ambrose Phillips 
in his recent pamphlet, have rested the whole strength of 
their cause. Verax, in his Appendix, puts questions and 
difficulties to me, which only shew his entire ignorance of 
the Anglo-Catholic Theology of the present day. 



BAXTER, PRINTER, OXFORD. 



ERRATUM. 

Page 34, line 24. for u Rachel through [her child] Jacob worshipped Joseph" 
read u Rachel through Jacob worshipped [her child] Joseph" 



SIXTH LETTER 



N. WISEMAN, D.D. 



DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY. 



BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A. 

OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD, 



OXFORD, 
JOHN HENRY PARKER ; 
J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
1841. 



A 



SIXTH LETTER 



§ 1. Introduction, 

Sir, 

In my preceding Letters your Controversial 
Lectures were frequently referred to for statements 
and proofs of Romish doctrines, not with any 
particular view of calling on you for a defence 
of those Lectures, but merely because they con- 
tain a recent and tolerably authentic exposition 
of Romish tenets. In future, however, a more 
sparing use shall be made of your productions, 
since it appears from the conclusion of your " Re- 
marks" on my first Letter, that you "have, on 
principle, declined answering several attacks on 
your Controversial Lectures ; and that it will re- 
quire particular reasons to induce you to alter your 
past course." I beg you distinctly to understand, 
that it has not been my object to " attack your 
Controversial Lectures," but to contend against the 
system of which they furnish a convenient expo- 

A 2 



4 



LETTER VI. 



sition. This explanation will, I trust, have the 
effect of enabling you, without any compromise of 
" principle, 5 ' to continue your defence of principles 
and practices, in vindication of which you so eagerly 
rushed forward, when you imagined that they had 
been misrepresented by Mr. Newman. 

The course of these Letters now brings us to con- 
sider the doctrine of Purgatory. And here, Sir, I 
am ready to admit, that if the description given by 
Romish controversialists of their belief on this point, 
did really and fairly represent the doctrines which 
are currently received amongst you, we might be in 
some degree inclined to wonder at the opposition 
which has been made to the doctrine of Purgatory. 
It is the uniform practice of your modern writers to 
keep out of view all those offensive doctrines which 
are universally received amongst Romanists, although 
they have not beeen actually and formally defined 
by the Council of Trent ; and we are thus to be 
persuaded, that the Roman Churches are in no 
degree responsible for such doctrines — that they are 
the mere private opinions of individuals — that they 
may be disputed or denied at pleasure ; while at 
the same time, those very doctrines are sedulously 
inculcated on your own people, universally believed 
and approved ; and their denial by any member of 
your Communion, would cause the highest scandal. 
They are never, in fact, opposed by any Romanists, 
without bringing down on them the imputation of 
Jansenism, or of some other heresy; and if your 



LETTER VI. 



5 



opponents are ever able to bring it to the test 
whether you really do or do not hold them, we find 
that they are immediately defended with the utmost 
pertinacity. 

Of this you have yourself afforded an example in 
the present controversy. Tlomanists are continually 
assuring us, that they only invoke the Saints to 
" pray for us" to God, and that they are, therefore, 
most unjustly accused of idolatrous practices. I 
shewed, that it is an authorized practice in your 
Communion, to pray to the Saints in the very terms 
in which God is addressed ; to offer them Divine 
honours ; to regard them as fountains of grace ; to 
place religious trust and confidence in them ; to set 
them, in every respect, on a level with God. You 
had repudiated all such imputations ; but when they 
were actually brought home to your Communion, 
you at once stepped forward to express your appro- 
bation of all the most obnoxious expressions and 
practices that had been adduced, and to justify them 
by still more objectionable passages from spurious 
and forged writings. 

The same line of proceeding has been followed by 
your controversialists with reference to the doctrine 
now before us. The obnoxious doctrines connected 
with Purgatory are never obtruded on us : they are 
studiously kept out of view : and our attention is 
directed only to the points which have been formally 
denned by the Council of Trent. Thus Dr. Milner 
remarks, that <£ all which is necessary to be believed 



6 



LETTER VI. 



by Romanists on this subject, is contained in the 
following brief declaration of the Council of Trent : 
1 There is a Purgatory, and the souls detained there 
are helped by the prayers of the faithful, and parti- 
cularly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar 3 .' " 
M. Bouvier, Bishop of Mans, observes, that these 
" two points only have been defined by the Church 
as matters of Catholic faith," and that " other 
matters are left free to the discussion of theolo- 
gians 13 ." Perrone again, as cited by you in your 
Letter to Z\Ir. Newman, (p. 15), makes nearly the 
same statement ; and adds, that ' 1 every tiring relating 
to the place, duration, and quality of the pains of 
Purgatory, does not pertain to the Catholic faith," 
&c. "The Faith of Catholics," by the Romish 
priests Berington and Kirk, states, that all such 
questions are " superfluous and impertinent as to 
faith." (2nd Ed. p. 355.) 

If, Sir, the doctrine of Purgatory went no further 
than this, I believe there would not be any great 
repugnance to it. If to assert that "there is a 
Purgatory, and that the souls detained there are 
helped by our prayers," be sufficient, we need not 
have any further difference on this point. We 
admit " a Purgatory " just as much as you do, that 
is to say, a Purgatory in this present life; and we 
believe " that the souls detained there are helped by 
the prayers of the faithful." Will this satisfy you ? 

* End of Controv. Lett, xliii. 

b Tractatus de Poenitentia, p. 285. 



LETTER VI. 



7 



Oh no ! You will be ready to pronounce such a 
doctrine mere heresy. It is therefore evident, that 
your doctrine goes beyond the mere wording of the 
decree of Trent, or of the Creed of Pius V. Let 
us, then, ascertain what the doctrine of Romanists 
really is. 

In my first Letter (p. 36) I enquired, in reference 
to your quotation from Perrone, which was intended 
to shew that Romanists are at liberty to speculate 
on the nature of Purgatory, whether he does not add 
to his statement, "that the doctrine of a purging 
material fire is the general and most probable 
opinion of theologians ? and I also requested you 
to produce the entire passage. With this request 
you have declined to comply ; and I shall therefore 
copy what immediately follows your quotation, in 
order that we may be able to see how far Romanists 
are at liberty to speculate on points involved in the 
doctrine of Purgatory, though not actually com- 
prised in the definition of the Council of Trent. 

Having stated then, that " matters relating to the 
place, duration, and quality of pains in Purgatory do 
not pertain to the Catholic faith," Perrone proceeds 
thus : 

" We are not ignorant, that there are some of 
those things which we have said do not pertain to 
faith, which, although they be not defined, cannot be 
rejected without a mark of temerity ; since not only 
the common doctrine of theologians concerning them, 

c Remarks, &c, p. 78. 



8 



LETTER VI. 



(from which it is unlawful for any discreet Catholic 
to depart without most weighty reason,) is suffici- 
ently known ; but also the sense of the Church her- 
self especially with reference to the severity of 

THE PUNISHMENTS WITH WHICH SOULS ARE TORTURED 

in Purgatory V ' 

This passage throws considerable light on the 
subject. It appears that although Perrone does not 
expressly state that the doctrine of a material purging 
fire is most commonly received by theologians, he 
does inform us, that there are various points, not 
put before us by Romish Controversialists, which 
cannot be rejected by Romanists, without rendering 
themselves liable to formal condemnation by the au- 
thorities of their Communion ; for the " common 
doctrine of theologians, " and " the sense of the 
Church herself" are the ordinary grounds for Papal 
and Episcopal censures. Let us next endeavour to 
ascertain, what points may be considered to have 
the general sanction of theologians, and to represent 
the sense of the Roman Church. 

d Haud ignoramus ex his, quae diximus ad fidem minime spec- 
tare, aliqua esse, quae quamvis definita non sint, absque temeritatis 
nota rejici non posse, quum satis innotescat circa ea non solum 
communis theologorum doctrina, a qua cordato Catholico absque 
gravissima causa recedere nefas est, sed insuper ipsius ecclesise 
sensus, praesertim circa pcenarum acerbitatem, quibus animse in 
Purgatorio cruciantur. — Perrone, Theologia, t. iii. p, 321, ed. 
Bom. 1836. 



LETTER VI. 



9 



§ 2. Doctrine of Purgatory stated and refuted. 

1 . In the first place then, it is the doctrine of the 
Roman Church and of all her theologians, that the 
souls detained in Purgatory suffer dreadful tortures 
from fire, as well as in many other ways, and that 
their punishment differs from that of hell only in 
duration, the one being temporal, the other eternal. 
Bouvier Bishop of Mans writes in the follow- 
ing terms : " All agree that there is a twofold 
punishment in Purgatory, one of ' loss,' which is the 
delay of the beatific vision ; and the other of 
' sense.' This, according to the Greeks, is caused 
by severe labours and pains : but the constant belief 
of the Latins is, that there is in Purgatory a mate- 
rial fire like the fire of hell ; and therefore that the 
Church, in praying for the souls of the faithful, does 
not ask merely for ' a place of light and peace,' but 
for a place ' of cooling 3 i. e. against the ardour of 
the fire 6 ." "It is certain, 93 says Cardinal Bellar- 
mine, " that in Purgatory, as also in hell, is a punish- 
ment of fire, whether that fire be understood properly 
or metaphorically f ." In another place he observes 
that the temporal punishment to be endured after 
the remission of sin, " is the very same sensible 
punishment which the sinner ought to have suffered 
in hell, with the exception of its eternity s ." Dens 

e Bouvier, de Pcenitentia, p. 285. 

f Bellarminus de Purgatorio, lib. ii. c. x. 

s Bellarminus de Pcenitentia, lib. iv. c. i. 



10 



LETTER VI. 



teaches that the pains of Purgatory are the same as 
those of hell h . Delahogue says that " theologians 
commonly teach" that the souls in Purgatory " are 
confined in some dark prison, and tortured by some 
fire 1 ." Natalis Alexander having observed that 
" it is not a dogma of faith that the fire of Purga- 
tory is real and corporeal," says, " I reply thirdly, 
that according to the more probable opinion received 
by the Church, the fire of Purgatory is real and 
corporeal, and nevertheless tortures incorporeal 
souls \" In fine, Pope Benedict XIV. fully ex- 
plains to us the doctrine of the Roman Church, as 
to the tortures suffered in Purgatory. 

He remarks on a certain part of the Canon of 
the Mass, that the Priest therein prays, "for all 
those who are expiating in the fire of Purgatory ; 
and requests for them all ' a place of cooling,' which 
refers to that fire in which they are burning ; 4 a 
place of light,' which relates to that darkness in 
which they are ; ' a place of repose,' which regards 
that anxiety of mind with which they are struggling; 
by which threefold species of punishments those 
miserable souls are expiated by the Divine Jus- 
tice 

In explaining a disputed passage in a Mass for 
the dead, the same Pontiff says : " But that we may 

h Dens, Theologia, t. vi. p. 40. 

1 Delahogue, de Pcenitentia, p. 304. 

k Natalis Alex. Dissert, xlv. in Ssec. iv. 

1 Benedict, xiv. De Sacrincio Missse, p. 128. ed. Ferrarise, 1767, 



LETTER VI. 



I I 



determine something, it seems that we should say 
that the Church, in that anthem or offertory in 
Masses for the dead, means the punishments of 
Purgatory ; and calls Purgatory hell, because 

THERE IS THE SAME FIRE IN BOTH PLACES J and 

prays that souls may be delivered ' from the deep 
pit, and the mouth of the lion/ that is, from the 
subterranean prison in which the souls of the just 
are expiated ; and finally, that the Church prays of 
God that ' Tartarus may not swallow them up, and 
that they may not fall into darkness,' that is, that 
they may not be longer detained in that gloomy 
prison, struggling in so many tortures" 1 ." 

This then is the sense of the Roman Church, 
from which, as Perrone remarks, no discreet member 
of her Communion can recede, without the imputa- 
tion of temerity at least. It is her doctrine, that 
the souls in Purgatory are tortured by fire, and 
other torments, in the same manner as the lost 
souls are tortured in hell. 

II. It is also held, that the duration of the 
pains of Purgatory is wholly unknown, and those 
who have maintained that they are of short dura- 
tion, have been condemned by the Roman Church. 
Tournely says that we cannot and ought not certainly 
to affirm any thing with regard to " the duration" of 
this punishment n . Bouvier, Bishop of Mans, in 
reply to the question " How long are the souls of 

m Benedict, uhi supra, p. 77. 
n Tournely De Deo, t. i. p. 582. 



12 



LETTER VI. 



the just detained in Purgatory?" says, 1 1 This is 
wholly unknown: Alexander VII. condemned the 
following proposition, c An annual legacy left for a 
soul, does not last longer than ten years.' St. Au- 
gustine recommended his mother thirty years after 
her death to the sacrifices and prayers of his 
readers : the Church celebrates anniversaries ap- 
pointed many ages before for certain souls in parti- 
cular. Therefore it may be that souls remain for a 
great length of time in Purgatory, and many interpret 
those words of St. Peter (1 Ep. iii. 19, 20,) ' By 
which also he went and preached to the spirits in 
prison, which were some time unbelieving, when 
once they waited for the long-suffering of God, in 
the days of Noe, when the ark was preparing,' of 
the souls detained in Purgatory from the time of 
the Deluge, to the descent of Christ into hell, that 
is, for two thousand years and upwards . 91 Thus it 
is evident, that, according to the received Romish 
doctrine, the time spent in Purgatory by the souls 
of the just is of an unknown length, and may ex- 
tend to many thousands of years. 

III. It is a matter of debate amongst Romish 
theologians, whether the souls detained in Purgatory 
are not tortured by devils. "It is uncertain," says 
Bouvier, " whether the devils torture the righteous 
in Purgatory ; some grave theologians with St. 
Thomas, deny it ; but St. Bernard affirms it, whose 



Bouvier, De Poenit. p. 287. 



LETTER VI. 



13 



opinion is favoured by the liturgies, in which God 
is entreated to deliver those souls from the lion's 
mouth 11 ." Cardinal Bellarmine observes that the 
doctrine is uncertain, because the schoolmen with 
St. Thomas, deny it ; but " on the other hand, that 
the souls in Purgatory are tortured by devils, is 
taught by many revelations, as that of St. Furseus 
in Beda, lib. ii. c. 19, and in Dionysius Carthu- 
sianus," &c q . 

IV. I have now only to add that it is the doctrine 
of the Roman Church and of all your theologians, 
that Purgatory receives only the souls of the just, 
i. e. of those persons who die in a state of justifica- 
tion and grace, free from the guilt of mortal sin. 

The Council of Trent distinctly intimates that 
"after the grace of justification is received/' tem- 
poral penalties for sin remain to be endured in this 
world or in Purgatory r . The Catechism of the 
Council describes it as "a fire in which the souls of 
the pious, being tortured for a certain time, are ex- 
piated 8 ." Bossuet says that "those who depart 

p Bouvier, p. 286. 

i Bellarminus De Purgatorio, lib. ii. c. xiv. 

r Si quis post acceptam justificationis gratiam, cuilibet peccatori 
pcenitenti ita culpam remitti, ut reatum seternse poena? deleri dix- 
erit, ut nullus remaneat reatus pcense temporalis exsolvendse vel in 
hoc sseculo vel in futuro in Purgatorio, antequam ad regna ccelorum 
aditus patere possit ; anathema sit. Cone. Trid. Sess. vi. can. 30. 

s Prasterea est purgatorius ignis, quo piorum anima3 ad defi- 
nitum tempus cruciatas expiantur, ut eis in eeternam patriam 



14 



LETTER VI. 



this life in the state of grace and charity, but with- 
out having discharged their debt of temporal punish- 
ment reserved by the justice of God, suffer that 
punishment in the other life V Perrone says : 
''By the word 'Purgatory' we mean a state of 
expiation, to endure for a time, in which just souls 
. . . are detained u ." Tournely, Bouvier, Delahogue, 
and all your other Divines, employ exactly the same 
language. 



Having thus ascertained what doctrines on the 
subject of Purgatory are received, approved, and 
authorized in the Roman Communion, though they 
have not been formally defined by the Council of 
Trent, we are in a position to explain to you the 
reasons for which the public in this country so 
strongly object to the doctrine in question. 

" I am at a loss to conceive," you say, " what 
can be considered in it repugnant to the justice 
of God, or to the ordinary ways of Providence ; 
what can be found therein opposed to the moral 
law, in the remotest degree. The idea that God, 
besides condemning some t6 eternal punishment, 
and receiving others to eternal glory, should have 

ingressus patere possit, in quam nihil coinquinatum ingreditur. 
Cat. Cone. Trid. pars i. art. v. c. 5. 
* Bossuet, Exposition, c. vii. 

u Perrone, Prael. Theol. vol. iii. p. 308. ed. Lovan. 1839. 



LETTER VI. 



15 



been pleased to appoint a middle and temporary 
state, in which those who are not sufficiently guilty 
for the severer condemnation, nor sufficiently pure 
to enjoy the vision of His face, are for a time 
punished and purged, so as to be qualified for this 
blessing, assuredly contains nothing but what is 
most accordant to all we can conceive of His 
justice. . . . What then, in God's name, is there in 
this doctrine, viewed simply in itself, that can make 
it so popular a theme of declamation against 
Catholics ? The anti- Scriptural doctrine of Pur- 
gatory, as it is termed, is more frequently than 
almost any other of our less important dogmas, the 
theme of obloquy and misrepresentation V 

Let me endeavour to account to you for the feel- 
ings of which you complain, and at the same time 
to shew that they are just and well-founded. 

In the first place, then, I would again draw your 
attention to the fact that Romanists most positively 
assert, that none but the just or righteous are 
admitted into Purgatory. Its punishments are 
reserved exclusively for those who die without the 
guilt of mortal sin, and in a state of justification. 
The pains of Purgatory are supposed to be inflicted 
in order to satisfy the justice of God for the tem- 
poral punishment still remaining due for remitted 
mortal sin, or for venial sin still remaining. You 
will not dispute the correctness of this statement. 

In the second place, let us consider what you 
x Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. p, 52, 53. 



16 



LETTER VI. 



believe to be the relation of the just to God, or 
what is implied in justification. According to the 
Council of Trent, then, " Justification is not merely 
remission of sin, but sanctification, and the renewal 
of the inner man by the voluntary reception of 
grace and Divine gifts ; so that he who was un- 
righteous is made righteous, and the enemy becomes 
& friend, and an heir acording to the hope of eternal 
life. . . . When a man is justified, and united to 
Jesus Christ, he receives, together with the remission 
of sins, the following gifts bestowed upon him at 
the same time, namely, faith, hope, and charity 7 " 

Thus justification includes the gift of sanctifying 
grace; and according to Perrone, whose theology 
is taught in the University of Rome, " Sanctifying 
grace, which is usually called 'habitual/ is com- 
monly defined as ' a supernatural gift of God, per- 
manently inherent in the soul, by which a man 
is immediately and formally rendered holy, just, 
pleasing to God, the adoptive Son of God, capable 
of doing works deserving of eternal life, and an heir 
of the same.' From this definition the whole system 
of Catholic doctrine, with regard to the nature of 
this grace and its effects, is collected ; as, first, that 
it is intrinsic to our souls, or closely adherent to 
them ; secondly, that it zvashes the soul from its 
defilement, and makes it refulgent with a sort of 
Divine beauty; thirdly, that this sanctifying grace 
is inseparable from justification, which depends on 
y Concil. Trident. Sess. vi. cap. vii, 



LETTER VI. 



1? 



it, since a sinner is, by one and the same act, made 
just and holy 2 ." 

When, therefore, you speak of a just man — of 
one who has received the grace of justification, you 
mean that he is reconciled to God ; holy ; full of 
faith, hope, and charity ; full of all-sanctifying 
grace ; free from the defilement of sin ; refulgent 
with the beauty of sanctity, a child of God, an heir 
of salvation, well-pleasing to God, united to Jesus 
Christ. There is in short no term applied by 
Scripture to the holy objects of God's love, which 
you do not believe applicable in all its fulness to 
the just. And yet, Sir, you hold that God consigns 
these his beloved children to the tortures of hell, 
for a period, the extent of which you cannot in any 
way calculate ! You believe that they are, perhaps 
for thousands of years, tortured in the same fire 
which torments the lost spirits ; that they are 
enveloped in darkness, struggling in anxiety of 
mind ; and in fine, perfectly " miserable." And 
this, Sir, is the representation you give of the 
mercy and the justice of God. The mercy of God 
is, according to your doctrine, exhibited in de- 
manding payment "even to the last farthing" for 
venial sins, and plunging the objects of His love 
into the torments of the damned, because they 
have departed this life without satisfying for some 
trivial fault. The justice of God is shewn by His 
exacting payment "even to the last farthing" for 

z Pen-one, Preel. Theol. t. v. p. 210. 

B 



18 



LETTER VI. 



sins which He has already pardoned — and by im- 
posing the tortures of the reprobate and of devils on 
those who are "just" and "holy," and "washed 
from all defilement," and whose souls are "re- 
fulgent with divine beauty !" 

Can it be a matter of surprise even to yourself, 
that, we reject such doctrine, as most highly in- 
jurious to God? I cannot understand how it is 
possible, that with such facts as these before the 
world, you can venture to appeal to our sense of 
the "justice" of God in connection with the doc- 
trine of Purgatory. You are " at a loss to conceive 
what can be considered in it repugnant to the 
justice of God." We are equally at a loss to 
imagine, how the justice of God can be believed 
by those who embrace the doctrine of Purgatory, as 
generally taught and held in the Church of Rome. 

But further : according to your doctrine, the 
punishment of Purgatory is required by the unsatis- 
fied justice of God. The infinite atonement offered 
by our Lord Jesus Christ is, it seems, insufficient to 
satisfy the demands of Divine Justice. No : after 
that atonement has been applied to the soul, and 
has produced its full justification and sanctification, 
Divine Justice still remains unsatisfied! What 
then, we would ask, is the benefit of Christ's atone- 
ment for sin, if it does not satisfy the justice of 
God ? If that justice be not satisfied b}^ the merits 
of Christ applied in justification, we may say with 
the Apostle, " Your faith is vain, ye are yet in your 



LETTER VI. 



19 



sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in 
Christ are perished." (1 Cor. xv. 18, 19.) The 
doctrine of Purgatory, therefore, subverts our hope 
of salvation. It leaves the justified without any shield 
against the demands of infinite and awful justice. 
Let it not be alleged, in reply, that the justice of 
God is partially appeased by the merits of Christ 
applied in justification, but that it has further de- 
mands on us ; for this still subverts our belief in 
the infinite value of Christ's atonement : it assumes 
most unwarrantably, that the demands of infinite jus- 
tice are capable of division : it leaves us in total un- 
certainty as to the amount of the demands which 
Divine justice may have upon us : in fine, in ad- 
mitting that it has any demands on us at all, it 
shakes our confidence in the atonement of our 
Lord : it teaches us to look away from that atone- 
ment, and to place our confidence in other things 
which still remain, to save us from the tremendous 
inflictions of a justice and a wrath which not even 
the death of the incarnate Deity could appease ! 
Oh, how frail, how fearful is this hope ! How 
would the repentant and justified sinner shudder to 
find himself on the brink of this precipice, with the 
tortures of Hell before him, and with nothing to 
satisfy the demands of Divine justice — nothing to 
appease the terrors of Divine wrath, except some of 
his own works and observances in the few years of 
sin and infirmity which he spends in this life ! 
What can be the value of those breathings and 

B 2 



20 



LETTER VI. 



actings of a worm ? Can they satisfy that justice 
which God Himself, "manifest in the flesh," has 
failed to satisfy ? Can they afford any ground of 
hope, when the very sacrifice of Christ, from which 
they derive whatever worth they may claim, is itself 
pronounced insufficient to meet the demands of 
divine justice ? 

But this, Sir, is not the whole of your received 
doctrine on the point. I have already shewn that 
you, and all Romish theologians teach, as a matter 
of course, that temporal punishments inflicted on 
the justified, whether in this world or in Purgatory, 
are necessary to appease the " wrath," the " anger," 
and the "vengeance" of an offended God a . You 
believe, therefore, that God is full of wrath and 
revenge towards the souls in Purgatory ; and yet 
you belie ve, as I have shewn in this letter, that 
those very souls are just, holy, full of faith, hope, 
and charity ; well-pleasing to God, and refulgent 
with divine beauty ! Is not this something like 
blasphemy ? I am sure that Romanists have no 
intention whatever to teach any doctrines which can 
be in any degree injurious to God. I am equally 
certain that they rarely think of comparing the 
doctrine of Purgatory with that of Justification. 
But the result of their doctrine is simply this : that 
the Saints are pursued by the Divine hatred and 
revenge! I would now ask you, whether you can 
much wonder at the repugnance with which your 

a Letter IT. p. 39—41. 



LETTER VI. 



21 



doctrine of Purgatory is viewed ; and I would still 
more solemnly and earnestly enquire, whether it is 
possible that such a doctrine can be true ? 

Your writers endeavour to obviate the prejudice 
which must be excited against the doctrine of Pur- 
gatory when understood, by representing that the 
punishment thus inflicted, is, after all, somewhat 
milder than that of hell ; for as Dens says, " It is 
much alleviated by the friendship of God, and the 
certainty of obtaining glory, and by resignation to 
the most just will of God V But let me ask, how 
can those souls feel consolation from the " friend- 
ship " of God, when, according to your doctrine, 
they are still subjects of His "justice," His "wrath," 
His " anger," and His 6 ' vengeance ? " And what 
reason is there to maintain that souls in Purgatory 
are "certain of obtaining glory," when the "jus- 
tice" of God, which demands eternal punishment, 
still remains unsatisfied ? It is imagined that their 
future happiness is made known to them by reve- 
lation in their particular judgment after death, and 
before the general judgment ; and that such souls 
know that they have continued in a state of grace 
and will therefore be finally saved. But Sir, ac- 
cording to your received doctrine, they know equally 
well, that they are subject to the demands of God's 
justice and wrath ; and they have just as much rea- 
son therefore to think, that they shall be saved for a 
time, and finally punished ; as to think that they 
h Dens, Theol. lib, vii. p. 354. 



22 



LETTER VI. 



shall be punished for a time and finally saved. In 
short, Sir, "resignation" is the only consolation re- 
maining to such souls ; and easy as it may be to be 
resigned to the inflictions of a loving Father— a 
reconciled God ; it is not so easy to feel resignation 
under the punishments of an angry and wrathful 
God. If it were so, we might suppose that the 
punishments of the damned, and of devils may be 
alleviated by resignation. No : resignation was 
never intended to be exercised in diminishing the 
demands of justice and of vengeance. It is in vain, 
therefore, that any attempt is made to draw dis- 
tinctions between the punishments of Hell and of 
Purgatory ; and this attempt is at once entirely 
and utterly subverted, by the direct assertions of 
Benedict XIV., Bellarmine, Cajetan, Dens, and 
others, that the punishment of Purgatory " is the 
very same as that of Hell, its eternity only being 
removed." 

The answer of Romanists to all this may be rea- 
dily anticipated. They will exclaim : " This is not 
our belief : it has never been defined by the Church : 
it is no where to be found written in express terms 
in the Council of Trent : we are therefore not re- 
quired to believe it." In this manner they would 
gladly relieve themselves from the imputation of 
such errors, and from the legitimate prejudices 
which they are calculated to excite. 

But they cannot escape under these pretexts ; for 
I admit indeed that the whole mass of doctrine on 



LETTER VI. 



23 



Purgatory which has been produced, has not been 
formally defined by the Council of Trent,, and there- 
fore that it is not strictly de fide in the Roman 
obedience ; but I assert, on the authority of their 
most eminent divines, that the doctrines I have 
adduced, are, in fact generally ', if not universally, 
received, held, and acted on in their Communion — 
that they are received without censure or disapproba- 
tion from any authority — and that any Romanist who 
openly opposed or censured them, would be liable to 
censure from authority. I would in short ask, 
Whether any Romanist is now prepared to censure 
or publicly reject any of the above doctrines ? Will 
he anathematize or even censure the doctrine, that 
the souls of the righteous are tortured in Purgatory 
— that they are struggling in fiery tortures — that 
they suffer torments of sense — that the pains they 
suffer are most horrible, and far beyond any that 
are endured in this life — that they differ from the 
tortures of hell chiefly in duration — that this tor- 
ture is of unknown length, and may continue for 
thousands of years — that it is exacted by God's jus- 
tice, after sin has been pardoned — that it is inflicted 
by an angry God on the justified ? No, Sir : neither 
you, nor any other Romanist will venture to uplift 
your voice against this doctrine, although it is not 
contained in the decrees of Trent. It is therefore 
the doctrine of Romanists — the received and ap- 
proved, doctrine in their Communion ; though it may 
not be de fide ; and therefore they cannot escape 



24 



LETTER VI. 



from it, or persuade us that it is not really their 
doctrine. Let us see it openly disputed and denied, 
with impunity, by Romanists ; and then, but not 
till then, will we exonerate them from the charges 
to which it gives rise. 

§ 3. Romish Proofs from Theological Reasons 
and Scripture, refuted. 

Let us now come to your arguments in proof of 
the doctrine of Purgatory. 

I. The first and leading argument of all your theo- 
logians is, that "since temporal punishments are 
due to Divine justice for remitted sins, such punish- 
ments, if not averted by satisfactions in this world, 
must be endured in Purgatory." 

I have already shewn that the foundations of this 
argument are perfectly untenable. It has been 
proved in Letters II. and III., that the doctrine of 
temporal penalties being due to God's justice for 
remitted sin, is unsupported by Revelation, opposed 
to the word of God, contradictory to sound doc- 
trine, inconsistent with the doctrine of the Roman 
Church herself. I have further proved in Letters 
III. and IV., that satisfactions or penitential works 
for remitted sins, are not required by God. Hence 
it follows, as a matter of course, that the above 
argument of your writers for Purgatory is wholly 
unavailing ; and we are entitled to reverse it in the 
following manner. 



LETTER VI. 



25 



According to the Gospel, the Divine justice is 
satisfied, and the anger of God is appeased, when 
sin has been remitted by the infinite merits of Christ 
applied by true repentance, (comprising contrition, 
confession, and works of repentance.) Conse- 
quently, no further penalties can be exacted by 
Divine justice or anger from the justified believer ; 
and therefore he has no debt of satisfaction to pay 
in this life or another ; although he may be afflicted 
by God for his greater sanctification, and is always 
bound to live a life of humility, watchfulness, and 
self-denial. 

II. There is another favourite argument of all 
your theologians, which I shall (merely for the sake 
of convenience) give in your own words. " No one 
will venture to assert that all sins are equal before 
God — that there is no difference between those 
cold-blooded and deliberate acts of crime which the 
hardened villain perpetrates, and those smaller and 
daily transgressions into which we habitually, and 
almost inadvertently, fall. At the same time, we 
know that God cannot bear to look on iniquity, 
however small ; that He requires whatever comes 
into His presence to be perfectly pure and worthy 
of Him ; and we might rationally conclude that 
there should be some means, whereby those who 
are in the middle state of offence, between deep and 
deadly transgressions on the one hand, and a state 
of perfect purity and holiness on the other, may be 
dealt with according to the just measure of His 



26 



LETTER VI. 



justice ." "We are assured in the new Law, that 
' nothing defiled shall enter into the heavenly Jeru- 
salem.' Rev. xxi. 27. Suppose then, that a Chris- 
tian dies, who had committed some slight trans- 
gression ; he cannot enter Heaven in this state, and 
yet we cannot suppose that he is to be condemned 
for ever. What alternative then are we to admit ? 
Why, that there is some place in which the soul 
will be purged of the sin, and qualified to enter into 
the glory of God d ." 

This, Sir, is the palmary argument of all your 
writers in support of the doctrine of Purgatory. 
They all contend, with you, that those who die after 
having committed some of those smaller trans- 
gressions, defects, or faults, w T hich you call venial 
sins, cannot be admitted into Heaven, into which 
" nothing defiled" can enter ; and consequently that 
they must be purified from the guilt of those venial 
sins in Purgatory. 

Let us now consider for a moment what your 
opinions are with regard to venial sin, and whether 
you really consider it to be sin at all, properly 
speaking. It is the doctrine of the Council of 
Trent, that, for sins committed after baptism, the 
sacrament of penitence is the divinely-appointed 
remedy: "If any one saith,, that penitence is not 
" truly and properly a sacrament instituted by 
" Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful to 

c Controv. Lectures, vol. ii. p. 52, 53. 
d Ibid. p. 57. 



LETTER VI. 



27 



" God as often as they fall into sins after baptism ; 
" let him be Anathema 6 ." The same doctrine is 
taught by the Catechism of the Council. " After 
" the baptismal innocence is lost, unless one takes 
" refuge in penitence, without doubt, his salvation 
" should be despaired of f ." According to Perrone, 
penitence "as a sacrament is universally defined, 
" ' A sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord, in 
" which, by the authoritative absolution of the 
" priests, a man who is contrite, and has confessed, 
" receives remission of his sins committed after bap- 
" tism g ."' The same definition is given by Tournely h , 
Bouvier 1 , Dens, and your other theologians and 
writers. Hence therefore it is plain, that you 
believe the sacrament of penance to be the divinely- 
appointed mode of obtaining remission of sins com- 
mitted after baptism. 

It is also certain that you do not believe that 
venial sins are properly or necessarily the subject of 
this sacrament. You believe that they are a suffi- 
cient subject ; i. e. that a person may, if he wishes, 
confess venial sins, and receive absolution for them ; 
but you do not consider it necessary to do so k . It 

e Concil. Trident. Sess. xiv. c. i. 

f Cat. Cone. Tridentini, pars ii. De Pcen. Sacramento. 

s Perrone, Prael. Theol. t. vi. p. 366. 

h Tournely, De Pcenit. t. i. p. 10. 

1 Bouvier, De Poenit. p. 7. 

k Dens, Theologia, t. vi. p . 7 ; Ligorio, Theol. Moral, t. vi. 
p. 45. 79 ; Tournely, De Poenit. t. i. p. 102 ; Bouvier, De Poenit. 
p. 32 ; Perrone, ubi supra, p. 455. 



28 



LETTER VI. 



is the judgment of your theologians that, although 
the Canon of the Lateran Synod Omnis utriusque 
sexus, renders it absolutely incumbent on every 
member of your Communion to confess all his sins 
once in the year, yet, nevertheless, it is not in- 
cumbent on those who are conscious only of venial 
sins to confess them 1 ; and that a priest is bound to 
administer the Eucharist without exacting any pre- 
vious confession, if the petitioner declares that he is 
only guilty of venial sin m . 

Now, Sir, we may fairly conclude from this, that 
the Roman Church herself does not believe that 
venial sin is properly and really sin at all. 
St. Thomas, according to Tournely, thinks, that 
" repentance, really and properly so called, is not 
" necessary for the remission of venial sins, but a 
" virtual displeasingness in this life, or the pain of 
" Purgatory in another"." The Council of Trent 
itself declares, that venial sins may be remitted in 
many ways besides by penitence ; and Tournely p 
and Dens q (after St. Thomas Aquinas) consider the 
repetition of the Lord's Prayer, knocking on the 
breast, the sprinkling of holy water, a Bishop's or a 
Priest's blessing, and other similar matters, quite 

1 Ligorio, Theologia Moral, t. vi. p. 319. 
m Ibid. p. 318. 

n Tournely, De Deo, t. i. p. 623. 

Concil. Trid. Sess. xiv. c. v. 

p Tournely, De Poenit. t. i. p. 104. 

1 Dens, Theol. t. vi. p. 39. 



LETTER VI. 



29 



sufficient to remove the guilt of venial sin. Ligorio, 
after Aquinas, affirms, that " any motion of grace 
or charity " remits venial sin r . It is evident, then, 
that venial sin is, in your opinion, a very slight and 
trifling fault, failing, infirmity, or imperfection, 
rather than a real sin. If you believed it a sin, 
strictly speaking, you would apply the remedy which 
you believe God to have instituted for the remission 
of sin, and would oblige your people to confess it 
every year. 

But besides this, you believe that venial sin is 
perfectly consistent with a state of justification and 
grace ; and consequently, as I have shewn, yon are 
firmly convinced, that notwithstanding a justified 
person may have committed venial sin, he is never- 
theless (e holy, just, well-pleasing to God, united to 
Christ, endowed xvith the grace of sanctification, re- 
fulgent xvith Divine beauty \ n 

So then your doctrine comes to this : That those 
who are full of holiness and of all heavenly graces, 
are, on account of some trifling failings, which do 
not even require repentance, to be tortured in Pur- 
gatory, with the punishment of devils, for an un- 
known length of time ! Is this your representation 
of the justice of God ? 

And you also maintain, that those who are thus 
holy, thus sanctified, thus united to Christ, are un- 
worthy to be received into heaven ! Yes : because 
it is written, that "there shall in no wise enter into 

1 Ligorio, ubi supra, p. 44. 



30 



LETTER VI. 



it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh 
" abomination, or maketh a lie ; but they which are 
" written in the Lamb's book of life ; " (Rev. xxi. 
27.) You assert, that the justified who die after the 
commission of some trivial fault are unfit to enter 
Heaven. The "justified" then, according to you, 
are defiled! The " holy" are defiled ! The "mem- 
bers of Christ" are denied! The "children of 
God " are defiled ! They are too impure to be re- 
ceived into Heaven ; and yet they are not too im- 
pure to be "members of Christ." They are fit to 
be 66 members of Christ," but they are so defiled that 
they cannot be permitted to enter His presence. 
Was there ever known such an absurd, such a 
monstrous, such a contradictory doctrine ? If no 
one shall be received into Heaven that " maketh a 
lie" those who uphold this doctrine may well trem- 
ble. Those who would consign to the tortures of 
hell the holy and glorious objects of God's love, 
are themselves guilty of a mortal sin against the 
God of truth, of mercy, and of charity. 

III. Romanists appeal in the next place to the 
Holy Scriptures. I shall again avail myself without 
scruple of your words. 

(1.) "There is a passage with which, probably, 
" most who have looked into this subject are well 
" acquainted. It is in the second book of Mac- 
" cabees (chapter xii.) where we are told how 
" Judas, the valiant commander, made a collection, 
" and ' sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to 



LETTER VI. 



31 



" Jerusalem for sacrifice, to be offered for the sins 
" of the dead, thinking well and religiously con- 
" cerning the resurrection.' For if he had not 
" hoped that they that were slain should rise 
* " again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain 
" to pray for the dead. It is, therefore, a holy 
" and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that 
" they maybe loosed from their sins. (xii. 43 — 46.) 
" .... It proves therefore, that, at the time of the 
" Maccabees, the conviction existed, that when 
" prayers were offered for the dead, they were 
" beneficial to them, and that it was 'a holy and 
u wholesome thought to pray for the dead 8 .' " 

In commenting on this argument of all your 
writers, let me first observe, that the persons for 
whose sins these sacrifices and prayers were made, 
had been slain in battle (verse 34) ; and that when 
Judas and his company came to bury them, <( under 
" the coats of every one that was slain, they found 
" things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, 
" which is forbidden the Jews by the Law. Then 
" every man saw that this was the cause wherefore 
" they were slain." (verse 40.) 

From this it appears that the cause for which 
these people were slain, was their possession of 
what was " accursed" by the Law, (1 Deut. vii. 25, 
26.) and their symbolizing with idolaters, offences 
to which the extreme penalty of death was awarded 
by the law of God. They were thus guilty of 
s Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. 54, 55. 



32 



LETTER VI. 



mortal sin. If therefore, this passage correctly 
states the tenets of the Jews at that time, it proves 
that they believed it lawful to pray for the pardon 
of those who died in mortal sin — and therefore 
either they or you must be in error, for you hold it 
inconsistent with the Catholic faith to pray for 
those who die in mortal sin. Your writers allege 
that the sin was venial in this case, because those 
who were slain were ignorant that they were in 
possession of things offered to idols ; but this is 
purely conjectural ; and had it been the case, these 
persons could not have been punished with death, 
without having committed any real sin which de- 
served it. It is contended by Romanists, that as 
the custom of praying for the dead, here mentioned, 
existed among the Jews in our Saviour's time, and 
was not reproved by him, it must be lawful. What 
is this but to condemn your own doctrine on the 
subject ? If it were lawful, in the opinion of the 
Jews, to pray for those who had died suddenly in 
mortal sin, and if our Saviour did not reprove this 
view, then it follows that Christians ought to imi- 
tate their example. Nevertheless you refuse to do 
so, and pronounce it wrong. So that your own 
doctrine and practice are condemned by the passage 
you have adduced in their favour. 

Remember that I am not her contending 
against the practice of prayer for the departed 
faithful, as it was allowed in the primitive Church. 
I am merely denying that this passage of the 



LETTER VI. 



33 



Maccabees can afford any support to your belief, 
that the justified who are free from mortal sin, are 
in a state of torment in another life. 

(2.) Romanists next appeal to the New Testa- 
ment. " Our blessed Saviour, on one occasion, 
" distinguishes two kinds of sin, and calls one a sin 
" against the Holy Ghost, saying, ' Whosoever 
" shall speak a word against the Son of man, it 
" shall be forgiven him ; but he that shall speak 
" against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven 
" him, either in this world, or in the next.' Matt. 
" xii. 32. Here is a species of sin, the aggravated 
" nature of which is expressed by its not being for- 
" given in the next world. Should we not thence 
" conclude, that some other sins may be forgiven 
" there ? Why give this peculiar characteristic to 
" one, if no sin is ever pardoned in the next world ? 
" Assuredly, we have a right to conclude that there 
" is some remission of sin there • and yet it cannot 
" be either in Heaven, or in the place of eternal 
" punishment. We must therefore admit some other 
" state in which this may be." 

Now, Sir, admitting that such a conclusion may 
possibly be drawn from our Saviour's words, I have 
yet to learn that such a possibility is sufficient to 
found an article of Catholic Faith. It may be that 
such a doctrine was meant to be taught by these 
words, or it may be that our Lord had no such 
intention ; for surely you do not mean to say that 
your conclusion follows as a matter of necessity from 

c 



34 



LETTER VI. 



this text — that because Christ says that a certain sin 
shall not he forgiven in this world or in the next, 
therefore there are sins which will be forgiven in the 
next world. You must see, that conclusions gathered 
in this way from texts which do not necessarily 
infer them, are wholly insufficient to prove articles 
of faith. It is very true that St. Augustine argues 
with you from this text, that some sins will be 
remitted in the world to come ; but he adds, with 
becoming caution ; " Concerning this thing, since it 
" is a most deep question, no precipitate opinion is 
" to be formed 1 ." And if St. Gregory the Great 
also makes use of the same argument 11 , I must beg 
to remind you, that according to the received doc- 
trine of all your theologians, the sentiment of one 
or two of the Fathers is quite insufficient to consti- 
tute an article of faith. On the other hand, many 
of the Fathers understand the expression of our 
Lord, that this sin " shall not be forgiven him in 
" this world or in the next," as simply equivalent to 
saying, that it never shall be remitted. This may be 
collected from St. Jerome x , Chrysostom y , Theo- 
phylact 2 , Hilary of Poictiers a , Theophilus of An- 

1 De qua re, quoniam profundissima qusestio est, non est modo 
praecipitanda sententia. August, lib. vi. cont. Julian, c. 15. t. x. 
u Gregor. Mag. Dialog, lib. iv. c. 39. 
x Hieron. Comment, in S. Matt. Oper. t. ii. p. 50. 
y Chrysost. Oper. t. vii. p. 449. ed. Benedict. 
z Theophylact. Comment, in IV. Evang. in loc. Paris, 1631. 
a Hilarius Pictav. Opera, p. 671. ed. Benedict. 



LETTER VI. 



35 



tioch b , Dionysius, Carthusianus , &c. ; and there- 
fore there is nothing unreasonable in our adopting 
that interpretation, more especially as our Lord is 
represented in the other Gospels as actually using 
the word u never" to express his meaning more 
fully. But besides this, the text, as interpreted by 
Romanists, goes to establish a doctrine which they 
do not themselves believe ; i. e. that sin in general 
may be remitted in another world ; and consequently 
that those who die in mortal sin, may be pardoned 
after death. You will answer in a moment, that 
the text only refers to the temporal punishment due 
to remitted mortal sin, or to venial sins. But where, 
I would ask, have you learnt this ? What au- 
thority have you for thus forcing the text to suit 
your own purposes ? The text says nothing of 
"temporal punishments" or of "venial sins;" it 
simply and broadly speaks of " sin ;" and if you 
are entitled to limit its meaning to suit your own * 
purposes, why do you not also limit the words of 
our Lord, " whosesoever sins ye remit they are 
" remitted?" and say that they only confer the 
power of remitting " temporal penalties" or " venial 
< c sins?" 

(3.) We next come to the famous text ; Other 
" foundation can no man lay than that is laid, 
<e which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build 

b Theophil. Antioch. Comment, in IV. Evang. lib. i. Bibl. 
Patr. t. i. p. 874. 

c Dionvs. Carthus. in loc. 



36 



LETTER VI. 



" upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, 
" wood, hay, stubble ; every man's work shall be 
" made manifest : for the day shall declare it, 
** because it shall be revealed by fire ; and the 
" fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. 
" If any man's work abide which he hath built 
" thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any 
" man's work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss : 
" but he himself shall be saved ; yet so as by fire." 
(1 Cor. iii. 11—15.) 

This passage, which so many of your writers ad- 
vance in proof of the doctrine of Purgatory, does 
not seem to you or to Perrone to have much weight. 
The reasons for this are supplied by Tournely d 
and Natalis Alexander 6 , from whom we learn, that 
although many persons understand the text in the 
sense usually given to it by modern Romanists, 
yet St. Augustine himself confesses that it is obscure 
and difficult to understand ; and he says that " he 
" should prefer to hear persons of more under- 
" standing and wisdom" on that subjects Bellar- 
mine observes, that there are many points in this 
text on which interpreters do not agree. First, 
what is meant by the builders ; 2. what by gold, 
silver, and precious stones, wood, hay, stubble ; 
3. what by the day of the Lord ; 4. what by the 
fire which shall try every man's work. It appears 

d Tournely, De Deo, t. i. p. 590. 

e Natalis Alexander, Dissert, xlv. in Hist. iv. seculi. 

f Augustinns, lib. de Fide et Operibus, cap. xvi. 



LETTER VI. 



37 



that Chrysostom, Theodore!, and the Greek Fathers, 
understand the fire here spoken of to be the eternal 
fire of hell, while St. Augustine and St. Gregory 
the Great believe that it signifies only the tribula- 
tions of this life g . In conclusion Natalis Alexander 
and Tournely remark, that amidst such various ex- 
positions of interpreters, Purgatory can only be 
deduced probably from this text, not demonstratively. 
It is plain, therefore, that we need not trouble our- 
selves in discussing with you the meaning of this 
passage. 

(4.) There is another text which is in much 
favour with some Romanists, and which we may 
as well consider here. I allude to the well known 
passage in the first epistle of St. Peter : " For 
" Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just 
" for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, 
" being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by 
" the Spirit. By which also he went and preached 
ec unto the Spirits in prison ; which some time 
" were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of 
" God waited in the days of Noe." (1 Pet. iii. 
18—20.) 

How the doctrine of Purgatory is to be deduced 
from this, it is not easy to see. It is very true that 
a "prison" is here mentioned, but the inhabitants 
of this prison were those who were disobedient in 
the days of Noah, and we have no right hence to 
infer that the justified or obedient are cast into 
s Bellarmin. De Purgatorio, lib. ii. cap. v. 



38 



LETTER VI. 



any prison after death, more especially when it is 
considered that we are now under a different dis- 
pensation from that under which these souls were 
in prison, and that no conclusive argument can be 
drawn from their condition to ours. 

(5.) As to that text which other writers of yours 
quote, " I tell thee, thou shalt not come out thence, 
" till thou hast paid the last farthing," (Luke xii. 
59,) I need only refer to Natalis Alexander, one of 
your most approved theologians, who observes that 
" this place does not demonstrate Purgatory ;" for 
according to St. Augustine, the " adversary" who 
accuses us to the judge, is the Law of God ; while 
St. Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome, &c. believe that it 
signifies any one whom we have injured, and who 
complains to God against us ; and that the prison 
here mentioned is Hell, from which the sinner shall 
never escape. This is also the interpretation of 
St. Augustine 11 . It is plain, therefore, that no 
argument for Purgatory can be deduced from this 
text, as Natalis Alexander remarks. 

As for the other passages of Scripture which 
various writers have adduced in support of Pur- 
gatory, I refer you to the writer last mentioned, 
who has sufficiently shewn their insufficiency. 

§ 4. Romish Proof s from Tradition, refuted. 

We now come to your arguments from tradition 
in support of the doctrine of Purgatory. 

h This is proved by Natalis Alexander, ubi supra. 



LETTER VI. 



39 



It would be impossible in a short Tract to ex- 
amine ail the passages which have been adduced in 
proof of the doctrine of Purgatory. I shall there- 
fore content myself with noticing those which you 
have yourself selected from the " Faith of Catho- 
" lies V as bearing most strongly on the point. 

We are first referred to Tertullian's statement 
that a Christian widow " prays for the soul of her 
" husband, entreating repose for him, and partici- 
" pation in the first resurrection 1 "." This will not 
aid you, for the mere circumstance of her entreat- 
ing repose or rest for him, does not imply that he 
was not actually in the enjoyment of that " rest 
<c which remaineth for the people of God." We 
pray for those who are in a state of grace in this 
world, that they may have faith, hope, and charity ; 
meaning to express our desire that those graces 
may be continued and increased. So also the Chris- 
tian widow meant to pray that her husband might 
continue in his "rest" and that it might be aug- 
mented. There is not the slightest reason to sup- 
pose that she believed him to be in a state of 
suffering. 

St. Cyprian states that his predecessors " advised 
" that no brother, departing this life, should nomi- 
" nate any Churchman his executor ; and should 
cc he do it, that no oblation should be made for him, 

1 Controv. Lectures, vol. ii. p. 59 — 63. 
k Tertull. de Monogamia, c. 10. 



40 



LETTER VI. 



" nor sacrifice offered for his repose 1 ." And it is 
hence argued, that " it was considered a severe 
" punishment, that prayers and sacrifices should 
" not be offered up for those who had violated any 
" of the ecclesiastical laws™." 

A punishment it certainly was — a mark of repro- 
bation on the memory of the deceased — an exclusion 
from the ordinary offices of Christian love and 
honour at that time. But you will in vain look 
here for any intimation of a belief that the souls of 
the departed faithful were in any torment. 

We are next referred to Origen, and informed 
that "no one can be clearer regarding this doc- 
ts trine." Origen says : u When we depart this life, 
" if we take with us virtues or vices, shall we 
" receive reward for our virtues, and those tres- 
" passes be forgiven to us which we knowingly 
ce committed ; or shall we be punished for our 
" faults, and not receive the reward of our virtues ? 
" Neither is true ; because we shall suffer for our 
(( sin, and receive the reward of our good actions 
(( . . . . Would you enter into Heaven with your 
" wood, and hay, and stubbie, to defile the kingdom 
u of God ; or, on account of those incumbrances, 
( - remain without, and receive no reward for your 
" gold, and silver, and precious stones ? ... It is 
" manifest that, in the first place, the fire destroys 

1 Cypr. Ep. xlvi. p. 1 14. 
m Lectures, p. 59. 



LETTER VI. 



41 



" the wood of our transgressions, and then returns 
" to us the reward of our good works 11 ." 

On this passage I would beg to quote to you the 
note of the Benedictine editors of Origen, derived 
from the writings of the learned Huet, Bishop of 
Avranches. " Not only in this place but in a 
" multitude of others, Origen establishes a Pur- 
" gatory ; but in his own way, that is to say, that 
" no other fire or punishments torture souls, but 
u those that are purgatorial or temporary" In fact 
Origen denied the eternity of future punishments ; 
as St. Augustine remarks in his book on heresies ; 
and the doctrine of which you so highly approve 
is styled by this great Father " a most vain impiety," 
which Origen had learned from the heathen philo- 
sophers, and which St. Augustine refuted in his 
works °. It was also condemned as a heresy by 
the fifth (Ecumenical Synod p . The passage, then ? 
is throughout heretical ; and you venture to appeal 

n Origen. Horn. xvi. al. xii. in Jerem. t. iii. p. 231, 232. 
ed. Bened. 

° Quis enim Catholicus Christianas vel doctus vel indoctus non 
vehementer exhorreat, earn quam dicit (Origenes) purgationem ma- 
lorum, id est etiam eos qui hanc vitam in flagitiis et facinoribus et 
sacrilegiis atque impietatibus quamlibet maximis finierunt, ipsum 
etiam postremo Diabolum atque angelis ejus, quamvis post longis- 
sima tempora, purgatos atque liberatos regno Dei lucique restitui 
. . . De qua vanissima impietate adversus philosophos, a quibus ista 
didicit Origenes, in libris de Civitate Dei diligentissime disputavi. 
August. Lib. de Hseres. c. xliii. t. viii. Oper. ed. Bened. p. 13. 

p Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. t. iii. p. 603. 



42 



LETTER VI. 



to these condemned heresies as affording " clear" 
proofs of your doctrine ! 

We are next referred to the language of 
St. Basil, who, in commenting on the words of 
Isaiah, " Through the wrath of the Lord is the 
" land burned," says,, that "the things which are 
c ' earthly shall be made the food of a punishing fire : 
" to the end that the soul may receive favour and be 
" benefited ;" and that there is there no 61 threat 
" of extermination, but it denotes expurgation, 
" according to the saying of the Apostle: If any 
" man's works burn, he shall suffer loss ; but he 
" himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire q ." I have 
only to remark, that it is, I think, impossible for 
any one to read the passage, without perceiving 
that St. Basil in this place was speaking only of the 
temporal tribulations of the Jews in this life, and 
that he did not make the slightest allusion to the 
doctrine of Purgatory. 

St. Ephrem of Edessa is cited, as asking his 
brethren to pray for him after his departure, and 
as maintaining that " the dead are helped by the 
" offerings of the living 1 ." This merely refers to 
the practice of praying for the dead ; it determines 
nothing as to their condition. You also quote the 
following words : "If also the sons of Mattathias 
" who celebrated their feasts in figure only, could 
" cleanse those from guilt by their offerings who fell 

i Basil. Com. in cap. ix. Isai. t. i. p. 554. 

r In Testament, t. ii. p. 234 ; p. 371 . edit. Oxon. 



LETTER VI. 43 

" in battle, how much more shall the priests of Christ 
" aid the dead by their oblations and prayers 8 ." 
This latter passage is of very doubtful authority, for 
it does not appear in any of the Greek manuscripts 
of Ephrem's works, and is only found in the Syriac *. 

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, it is said, asserts, " that 
u the souls of those for whom the prayers are 
" offered, receive very great relief while this holy 
ce and tremendous victim lies upon the altar u ," i- e. 
in the holy Eucharist. I would observe in the first 
place, that the word used is 6vrj<riv " profit" or 
" advantage " — not " relief ;" and next, that the 
passage merely proves the existence of the practice 
of prayer for the departed. 

St. Gregory of Nyssa is cited as teaching, that 
" God allows man to remain subject to what him- 
" self has chosen ; that having tasted of the evil 
" which he desired . . . and in this life being reno- 
" vated by prayers and the pursuit of Divine wis- 
" dom, or in the next, being expiated by the purging 
" fire, he might recover the state of happiness which 
" he had lostV I need not copy the remainder of 
the passage, which teaches throughout the same 
doctrine, namely, that of Origen, that persons who 
have committed sins in this life, will be purged 
from them by temporary punishments in another. 

s Lectures, ii. 61. 

* Ephrem. Syri Opera, t. ii. p. 239. 401. ed. Assemani. 

u Cyril. Cateches. Mystag. ix. x. p. 328. 

x Greg. Nyss. Orat. de defunctis, torn. ii. p. 1066, 1067, 1068. 



44 



LETTER VI. 



These passages were doubtless interpolated by the 
Origenist heretics, and Dom Ceillier remarks, that 
there is not one of the works of Gregory of Xyssa 
which the heretics have so much altered, as that in 
which these passages are found 7 . You have there- 
fore in this instance also, been only tracing the 
conformity of Romanism with heresies condemned 
by the Catholic Church. 

The next quotation professes to be from St. Am- 
brose z , but the work in which it is contained is re- 
jected as spurious by the Benedictine editors of 
St. Ambrose, and it is generally supposed by critics 
to be the work of Hilary, a deacon of the Roman 
Church who was involved in the schism of Lucifer 
of Cagliari a . This writer, in commenting on the 
words "He shall be saved, yet so as by fire," says, 
" He will be saved . . . because his substance shall 
remain, while his bad doctrine shall perish. 
Therefore he said, ' yet so as by fire,' in order 
that his salvation be not understood to be without 
punishment. He shews that he shall be saved in- 
deed, but he shall undergo the punishment of fire, 
and thus purified, be ' saved by fire,' and not be 
like the unbelieving, tortured with eternal fire for 
ever ; so that in some sort it may be worth one's 
while to have believed in Christ*" From the above 

y Ceillier, torn. viii. p. 365. 

2 Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. 62. 

a Natalis Alexander, Hist. Eccl. torn. iv. p. 150. 

b Ut per ignem purgatus fiat salvus, et non sicut perfidi aeterno 



LETTER VI. 



45 



passage it may be inferred that this writer was of 
opinion that all those who profess to be Christians, 
will finally be saved, even though they may have 
taught erroneous doctrine in the present life. Such 
a doctrine however, which is censured by St. Au- 
gustine, is not that of the Catholic Church. 

We now come to a genuine passage from St. Am- 
brose, in which he prays for the soul of the Em- 
peror Theodosius, " Give, O Lord, rest to Thy 
" Servant Theodosius, that rest which Thou hast 
" prepared for Thy Saints ... I will not leave him, 
" till, by my prayers and lamentation, he shall be 
el admitted to the holy mount of the Lord, to which 
" his deserts call him c ." We are to infer from 
this, I presume, that St. Ambrose believed the 
soul of Theodosius at that time to be in Purga- 
tory, suffering the torments remaining due to his 
sins. Was this really the case? The following 
extracts from the commencement of the very same 
funeral oration, will shew what was his view of the 
condition of the soul for which he prayed ; and it 
will also suffice to explain all similar prayers in the 
writings of the Fathers, and in the ancient Liturgies. 
Theodosius, he says, " did not lay aside his king- 
" dom (in death), but changed it, having been 
" brought, in virtue of his piety, to the tabernacles 

igne in perpetuum torqueatur : ut ex aliqua parte operse pretium 
sit credidisse in Christum. Ambrosiaster, Com. in 1 Ep. ad Cor. 
torn. ii. Append, p. 122. Oper. Ambrosii ed. Benedict. 
c Ambros. De Obitu Theodosii Oper. torn. ii. p. 1207, 8. 



46 



LETTER VI. 



" of Christ, to that heavenly Jerusalem, where, 
" being now placed, he saith, ' As we have heard, 
" so have we seen in the city of the Lord of Hosts 
" &c. d "' He afterwards says, " Being therefore 
" dehvered from the doubtful contest, Theodosius 
" of august memory now enjoys perpetual light, 
" a lengthened peace, and for those things which 
" he hath done in the body, rejoices in the fruits 
" of the divine reward 6 ." Therefore St. Am- 
brose did not believe that the soul for which he 
prayed, was in Purgatory. 

A passage from St. Epiphanius is quoted, in 
which he says, that in prayers, " we mention both 
" the just and sinners, in order that for the latter zee 
"may obtain mercy*" There is no allusion to 
Purgatory in this passage : it merely shews the 
opinion of Epiphanius, which was also that of 
Chrysostom g , and of Augustine 11 , that the punish- 
ment of lost souls in the other world might be 
alleviated by the prayers of the Church. This is 

d Et ille quidem abiit accipere sibi regnum, quod non deposuit 
sed mutavit, in tabernacula Christi jure pietatis adscitus, in illam 
Hierusalem supernam, ubi nunc positus dicit &c. Ambr. p. 1197. 

e Absolutus igitur dubio certamine, fruitur nunc augustse me- 
morise Tbeodosius luce perpetua, tranquillitate dmturna, et pro 
iis quae in hoc gessit corpore, remunerationis divinse fructibus 
gratulatur. Ib. p. 1206. 

f H seres, lv. sive lxxv. torn. i. p. 911. 

s Chrysostom. Horn. xxi. in Act. Horn. iii. in Ep. ad Phil. 

h Augustin. Enchirid. cap. ex. 



LETTER VI. 



47 



a doctrine which Romanists themselves do not 
receive. 

With reference to the passage cited by you from 
St. Jerome, " As we believe the torments of the 
" devil, and of those wicked men, who said in their 
" hearts ' there is no God,' to be eternal ; so, in regard 
" to those sinners who have not denied the faith, and 
" whose works will be proved and purged by fire, we 
f£ conclude that the sentence of the Judge will be 
" tempered by mercy i ." In this passage St. Je- 
rome certainly does speak of a Purgatory ; but it 
is one which is intended for the final purification of 
professing Christians, however great may have been 
their sins — a doctrine which is rejected by St. Au- 
gustine k , and by the Catholic Church. Even Ro- 
manists reject the doctrine of St. Jerome in this 
place. 

We are next met by a passage from St. Augustine, 
that " the prayers of the Church, or of some pious 
" persons, are heard for those who have been rege- 
" nerated in Christ, whose life in the body has not 
ei been so evil as to be judged unworthy of such 
" mercy, nor so good as to render such mercy 
" unnecessary. As also, after the resurrection, there 
" shall be some to whom, after punishments which 
" the spirits of the dead suffer, mercy shall be im- 
" parted, that they he not cast into eternal fire. 

1 Hieron. Comment, in cap. lxv. Isai. torn. ii. p. 492. 
k August. Enchirid. cap. lxvii, 



48 



LETTER VI. 



" Otherwise it would not have been said of some, 
" with truth, that ' their sin shall not be forgiven, 
" neither in this world, nor in the world to come,' 
u unless some sins were remitted in the next world 1 ." 

This passage will not establish your doctrine, for 
St. Augustine is here speaking of persons who de- 
part this life in sin, and who consequently are not 
in a state of justification ; and he supposes that 
such sinners may receive pardon in the next life. 
But he is not speaking of the just, who alone, 
according to the Romish doctrine, are consigned to 
Purgatory, This seems evident from his language 
elsewhere, for he asserts that "the souls of the pious, 
" when separated from the body, are at rest, but 
se those of the impious suffer punishment, until the 
" bodies of the former revive to eternal life, and of 
" the latter to eternal death™."' 

The last passage is also from St. Augustine n , as 
follows : "If they had built ' gold and silver, and 
" precious stones,' they would be secure from both 
" fires ; not only from that in which the wicked 
" shall be punished for ever, but likewise from that 
" fire which will correct those who are to be saved 

I De Civitate Dei, lib. xxi. cap. 24. t. vii. p. 642. 

m In requie enim sunt animse piorum a corpore separatee ; impi- 
orum autem poenas luunt, donee istarum ad seternam vitam, illarum 
vero ad seternum mortem, quae secunda dicitur, corpora reviviscant. 
De Civit. Dei, lib. xiii. c. 8. t. vii. p. 330. 

II Lectures, ii. 63 ; Remarks on Letter from Rev. W. Palmer, 
p. 79. 



LETTER VI. 



49 



ec by fire. . . . And because it is said ' he shall be 
" saved/ therefore that fire is despised. Yes, indeed, 
<e though they shall be saved by fire, that fire will 
" be more grievous than whatever a man can suffer 
" in this life ." 

• I have' only to remark, that St. Augustine himself 
elsewhere interprets the fire here spoken of as signify- 
ing the tribulations of this life p ; and that he acknow- 
ledges the texts of Scripture here referred to to be 
obscure and difficult q . So that, on the whole, it is 
doubtful in what sense he understood the above text. 
It seems, however, that in this, as in the last passage, 
he is not speaking of the justified, but of those 
who die in unrepented sin. Augustine says of the 
former : " It is unlawful to doubt that the souls of 
u the departed just and pious are living in rest 1 '." 

As to the language of Isidore of Seville, in 
reference to the purifying fire, that it is " longer 
" and sharper than any torments which man can 
" devise in the present life s ," I have only to say that 
the authority of this writer, who lived at the end of 
the sixth century, is of no great weight, and cannot 
suffice to establish an article of faith ; but he ex- 
presses his doubts whether those who are penitent 

Enarrat. in Psal. xxxvii. torn. iv. p. 295, 
P Enchirid. cap. lxviii. torn. vi. p. 222. 

1 Lib. de fide et operibus, cap. 16. torn. vi. p. 180. 

r Justorum ac pionim animee defunct orum, quod in requie vivant, 
dubitare fas non est. Aug. De Civ. Dei, lib. xii. cap. ix. 
s De Ordine Creaturarum, cap. xiv. cited in Remarks, p. 80. 

D 



50 



LETTER VI. 



and justified at the end of life do not receive at 
once remission of their sins, without any purifying 
fire*. 

The passage which you quote from St. Gregory, 
of Nyssa, in your Remarks (p. 80), has been already 
noticed, (p. 43). It is of no authority, and was 
interpolated by the Origenist heretics. 

These then are the best arguments which can be 
produced in favour of the doctrine of Purgatory. 
The errors of individual writers opposed to the 
Catholic doctrine, and the interpolations of heretics, 
are obtruded on us as the voice of tradition. But no 
where do we find, even in the passages adduced, the 
doctrine of Romanists. No where do we find it said 
that the " just and pious" are tortured for an indefi- 
nite time after this life with the punishments of the 
lost ; or that this punishment is inflicted by the 
" unsatisfied justice" of an " angry" and " vindic- 
" tive" God ; or that tortures of the most horrible 
description are awarded to the most trivial faults 
which do not require repentance ; or that the justi- 
fied members of Jesus Christ are too polluted to 
be permitted to enter his presence. These are the 
doctrines received, approved, and authorized in your 
Communion, and which are entirely opposed to 
those of the Scriptures and of Catholic tradition. 

1 Ibid, apud Dacherii Spicileg. torn. i. p. 303. 



LETTER VI. 



51 



§ 5. The Catholic Doctrine opposed to Purgatory, 
confirmed by Scripture and Catholic Antiquity. 

It now only remains to establish the truth in op- 
position to the doctrine of Purgatory. 

The belief of the Catholic Church in England, 
then, is expressed in the following prayer of her 
Ritual : " Almighty God, with whom do live the 

spirits of them that depart hence in the Lord, 
ie and with whom the souls of the faithful, after 
" they are delivered from the burden of the flesh, 
" are in joy and felicity ; we give thee hearty 
H thanks," &c. We therefore believe that the justi- 
fied are, after this life, in rest and happiness ; that 
they are not suffering any torments or afflictions ; 
and that they await the Resurrection in joyful cer- 
tainty of God's favour. 

How consoling and encouraging is this doctrine 
to those who are buffeting the waves of temptation 
in this life, and toiling through the narrow and 
thorny path which leads to eternal glory ! It 
enables them to look with hope to that moment 
when this doubtful contest shall be at an end, and 
when the liberated soul shall enter into the joy of 
its Lord — when the exile of this life shall be no 
more, and the holy, the pure, the humble spirit 
of the child of God, shall be received into the 
kingdom of its Eternal Father. Such a thought 
sheds so bright a splendour over death itself, that it 
is lost in the glory of victory. The Christian,then, 

D 2 



52 



LETTER VI. 



is stimulated by hope to prepare for death, knowing 
that he shall receive his reward as soon as this short 
life is over. How different would he his feeling if 
he believed that the torments of this life are greatly 
inferior to those which await him in another ; that 
the few years which he spends on earth are insuf- 
ficient for his purification ; that he must, perhaps 
for thousands of years after this life, suffer the 
torments of Hell, and groan under the miserable 
feeling of alienation from his God. The argument 
of St. Paul, " this light affliction, which is but for a 
" moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and 
" eternal weight of glory u ," would lose much of its 
force. He would look with anguish and terror to 
the end of life ; though he might derive some poor 
consolation from the reflection, that at some future 
time unknown to him, his soul would be delivered 
from the tortures of Purgatory. 

But the word of God strengthens us against such 
terrors by the unfailing assurances which it affords 
of God's love towards the justified — assurances 
which we do not feel warranted in limiting and cur- 
tailing as you do. We receive in all its length, and 
breadth, and depth, and height, that promise of 
Scripture, <c There is therefore no condemnation to 
" them which are in Christ Jesus x " — no condemna- 
tion to punishment, whether temporal or eternal. 
We believe that " being justified by his blood, we 



u 2 Cor. iv. 17. 



x Rom. viii. 1. 



LETTER VI. 



53 



u shall be saved from wrath through him y " — 
saved from his wrath here and hereafter. We are 
persuaded that " God hath not appointed us unto 
" wrath, but to obtain salvation by oar Lord 
" Jesus Christ, who died for us, that whether we 

" WAKE OR SLEEP We should LIVE TOGETHER WITH 

" him 2 .'' And hence we believe, that the justified 
souls in Paradise are not subject to the wrath of 
God, but that they are in salvation, and are living 
with Christ ; and therefore we reject with horror 
the notion that they are subjected to the penalties 
of the second death, even for a time. We believe 
that God will " withhold no good thing from them 
" that walk uprightly 2 ;" and therefore that he will 
not withhold from them peace and joy after this 
life. We know that he " preserveth the souls of his 
" saints b ," and therefore will not permit them to be 
tortured by the flames of Hell. We know that 
God " has delivered us from the power of dark- 
" ness c ;" that Christ has declared, "He that fol- 
" loweth me shall not walk in darkness d ;" and 
therefore we fear no dark and gloomy prison after 
this life, and no tortures from the inhabitants 
of darkness. We have the promise of God, " I 
" will never leave thee or forsake thee 6 :" and how 
can we imagine that we shall be "left" to the 
torments of infernal fire ? Xo : relying on him 



y Rom. v. 9. 
b Ps. xcvii. 10. 
e Hebrews xiii. 5. 



2 1 Thess. v. 10. 
c Col. i. 13. 



a Ps. lxxxiv. 11. 
d John viii. 12. 



54 



LETTER VI. 



who has said ; " with everlasting kindness will I 
" have mercy on thee f ," we rely on his love after the 
soul and body shall he separated. We believe that 
if Christ has said " we will come unto him, and 
" make our abode with him s ," tortures after this 
life shall not be the lot of those who are glorified 
by the indwelling of God. 

Surely a simple and unquestioning faith would 
teach us to feel with the Apostle : " To us to live 
" is Christ, and to die is gain h ," and "gain" im- 
plies rewards, not torments. It would oblige us to 
believe really that " there remaineth therefore a rest 
(C unto the people of God 1 ." It would compel us 
to acquiesce in the language of the pious, though 
uninspired author of the Book of Wisdom, that 
" the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, 
" and then shall no torment touch them k ;" and that 
" though the righteous be prevented with death, 
" yet shall he be in rest 1 " It would induce us to 
accept in all its fulness that consolatory declara- 
tion, 66 Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord, 
" from henceforth; yea, saith the Spirit, that they 
" may rest from their labours, and their works do 
" follow them™ 1 ." It would teach us to dwell with 
happiness on the assurance of our Lord to the 
dying malefactor, " To-day shalt thou be with me 
" in paradise 11 ;" beholding in this the immediate 

f Is. liv. 8. s John xiv. 23. h Phil. i. 21. 

1 Heb. iv. 9. k Wisd. iii. 1. 1 lb. iv. 7. 

111 Rev. xiv. 13. n Luke xxiii. 43, 



LETTER VI. 



55 



reward of the departing righteous, And when we 
read of the rich man in torments after this life, and 
of Lazarus in Abraham's bosom,, we should, with 
Catholic antiquity, see in the latter the reward of 
the righteous, even before the day of judgment. 

And now it may be fairly enquired, How can you 
dispose of this multiform voice of Scripture, pro- 
claiming peace, and rest, and joy, to believers, after 
this life ? By what authority do you venture to 
consign those to punishment, whom the Scripture 
pronounces blessed — to subject those to Divine 
justice and wrath, whom the word of God declares 
the objects of his love ? It is true that you explain 
away these passages. If rewards are promised, you 
say they are promised with a reserve ; if rest and 
joy are promised, they arise only from the cessation 
of the toils of this present life, and are in some 
sense or other consistent with a residence in Pur- 
gatory. Nothing is impossible to ingenuity ; no 
Scripture is incapable of perversion by the unstable 
and unlearned ; but notwithstanding all distinctions, 
and evasions, and subtleties, the meaning of the 
whole of Scripture evidently is, that the justified 
are after this life subject to no torments; but that 
they repose in peace and joy ; that they receive an 
immediate reward. 

How deep and wide is the contrast between this 
and your doctrine. You consign the "justified," 
the " sanctified," the " members of Christ," " bone 



56 



LETTER VI. 



" of his bone and flesh of his flesh/' to punish- 
ments, to tortures, to anguish, to flames, to misery, 
to the wrath and vengeance of God. Death is with 
you the moment when the real afflictions and 
torments of the justified, infinitely worse than any 
which they have suffered in this life, commence ; it 
is the entrance of the beloved children of God on a 
state where a vista of unknown length is filled with 
fire, and agonies, and torturing fiends. 

Is this the doctrine which you pretend to have 
learned from Catholic antiquity ? Did the Fathers 
believe that the sufferings of the righteous were en- 
hanced and multiplied by death ? Or did they 
agree with Scripture and with us, that death is a 
haven of rest to the wearied souls of the faithful ; 
that they await their resurrection in peace, and 
joy ; and that they repose in the bosom of their 
Saviour and their God ? I am really at a loss how 
to select from the abundant evidence which the re- 
cords of antiquity supply in confirmation of our 
doctrine, and in condemnation of yours. I shall 
however make the attempt. 

I commence with Justin Martyr, w T ho, near the be- 
ginning of his Dialogue with Trypho says, that " all 
" souls do not die," but that, " the souls of the pious 
f< remain in some better place, lv KpeirTovi iroi %wpu> } 
" and the unrighteous and wicked in a worse place, 
" expecting the time of judgment." It is plain from 
this, that the doctrine of Purgatory was unknown 



LETTER VI. 



57 



at that time, for it is impossible to regard as " a 
" better place" a region where tortures of the most 
dreadful character are inflicted. 

I next turn to the venerable Irenseus Bishop 
of Lyons, who was acquainted with the contempo- 
raries of the Apostles. " The Lord," he says, 
" taught in the fullest manner, that souls departing 
" from the body — not only continue to exist with- 
" out migrating from one body to another, — but to 
" preserve the same bodily appearance, in that 
" narrative concerning the rich man and Lazarus 
" who was at rest in Abraham's bosom, in which he 
u saith that the rich man knew Lazarus after death, 
ic and Abraham likewise ; and that each of them 
" remained in his own order," that is, in a place of 
suffering or of happiness, " and that he requested 
" him to send Lazarus to aid him . . . For by this 
" it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist, 
" . . and that each people" i. e. the good and the 
bad, " receive a fitting habitation even before the 
" day of judgment °." This is exactly our belief. 
We hold that the good receive reward, and the 
wicked punishment, immediately after this life. 

Tertullian, in refuting the opinion of some per- 
sons who denied that the souls of the faithful descend 
into the region of departed spirits, remarks that 
they " proudly imagine that the souls of the faith- 
" ful do not deserve it, as if servants were above 

Irenseus, adv. Hseres, lib. ii. cap. xxxiv. ed. Bened, 



58 



LETTER VI. 



" their Lord, and disciples above their master, 
" They disdain perhaps to receive the consolation of 
" awaiting the resurrection in Abraham's bosom p ." 
The faithful then, according to this Father, are in 
Abraham's bosom, and at rest. And hence he held 
that " We do an injury to Christ when we hear 
" without equanimity that any have been called 
" away by him, as if they deserved commiseration. 
" e I desire/ said the Apostle, 'to be received 
" presently, and to be with Christ q . There was 
evidently no notion at that time, that the souls of 
the departed believers were consigned to tortures, 
surpassing all that can be endured in this life. 

The language of the blessed Martyr St. Cyprian, 
is still more remarkable, and clearly establishes our 
faith against the error of Romanists. He consoles 
the faithful at Carthage under the awful visitation 
of a pestilence, in the following manner. " Our 
" country we believe to be Paradise : the Patriarchs 
( - we esteem to be our parents. Why then do we 
l( not speed and run, that we may behold our 
" country, and salute our parents ? There a great 
" multitude of those who are dear to us, await us ; 
" a numerous and abundant crowd of parents, 
" brethren, children, already secure of their own 

p Qui satis superbe non putant animas fidelium inferis dignas, 
servi super dominum et discipuli super magistrum, aspernati si 
forte in Abrahae sinu, expectandae resurrectionis solatium capere. 
Tertull. de Anima, cap. lv. p. 304. Oper. ed. Rigaltii. 

<i Tert. de Patientia, cap. ix. p. 145. 



LETTER VI. 



59 



" salvation, yet still desirous of ours, desire us. 
" How great a joy for them and us in common to 
" behold and embrace them ! What pleasure of 
" celestial kingdoms is there, without fear of death ; 
" and with eternal life what great and perpetual 
" happiness! There is the glorious choir of the 
" Apostles; there the number of the rejoicing Pro- 
i( phets . . . There are the merciful rewarded $pc\" 
Can any doubt remain after this, that the primitive 
Church believed the souls of the departed faithful 
to be in "the joy of their Lord;" and that they 
would have repelled with horror the notion, that 
they are consigned to torment, with the devil and 
his angels ? 

That the just and pious are reserved for torment 
after this life, was a doctrine wholly unknown to 
antiquity. The very writers who maintain that 
sinners will be saved by sufferings after this life, 
never thought of consigning the justified to the 
same punishment. Origen himself was a stranger 
to such a doctrine : " The soul," he says, " having 
" its own substance and life, when it departs from 
" this world, shall be disposed of according to its 
" merits, enjoying the inheritance of eternal life and 
" happiness if its actions shall have obtained it, or 
" delivered to eternal fire and punishments if the 
" guilt of its crimes have thrust it into them s .' , 

r Cyprianus, De Mortalitate. 

s Origen. Prsef. Lib. de principiis, torn. i. Oper. ed. Bened. 
p. 48. 



60 



LETTER VI. 



" We have," he elsewhere says, " a great High- 
" Priest . . . who hath promised to those who 
" rightly learn divine things and live according to 
" them, that he will raise them to heavenly places, 
" for he saith, That where I am there ye may also 
" be. Therefore we hope, that after the labours and 
" contests here belozv, we shall be in the highest 
" heavens V Whenever, in short, this Father speaks 
of the future destination of the righteous, he uses 
exactly the same terms that we should do. He 
never supposes them to be in any suffering what- 
ever. 

St. Methodius, Bishop of Patara A. D. 290, who 
was remarkable for his opposition to the errors of 
Origen, describes in the following terms the state of 
the departed faithful. " When this short transitory 
" life is dissolved, we shall have our dwelling 

" WITH GOD, EVEN BEFORE THE RESURRECTION, 

" until we receive again our habitation (the body) 
" renewed, and stable, and never to fall u ." It is 
clear from this, that the Primitive Church believed 
the souls of the just to be in happiness, for it would 
be impious to imagine that any torment can ap- 
proach those who " dwell with God." 

The Apostolical Constitutions, which appear to 
have been composed before the Council of Nice, 
furnish another proof of the continuance of the 

* Contra Celsum, lib. vi. torn. i. p. 145. 

u Methodius, De Resurrectione, apud Photii Biblioth. Cod. 
ccxxxiv. p. 921. ed. 1611. 



LETTER VI. 



61 



orthodox doctrine on this subject. In a prayer we 
find the following passage; "The spirits of all the 
" just are living with thee, and are in thine hand, 
" whom no torment shall touch; for all that are 
" sanctified are under thine hand*." How little 
notion was there at that time in the Church, that 
the pious and just go forth from this life, into suffer- 
ings far exceeding any that can be endured in this 
world ; into "misery," " torments," " punishments," 
— nay, into the very fire prepared for the devil and 
his angels, " its eternity only being removed." 

The illustrious Confessor St. Hilary, Bishop of 
Poic tiers, is another witness against the doctrine of 
Purgatory. He remarks on the history of the rich 
man and Lazarus, " There is here no putting off or 
" delay ; for the day of judgment is the eternal 
" retribution of blessedness or of punishment, but the 
" time of death, in the meanwhile, imposeth laws 
" on all, for (the bosom of) Abraham, or punishment, 
" reserves every one to the judgment 7 ." That is, 
the righteous are in Abraham's bosom, and the 
sinners are in punishment. 

A discourse, attributed by some to Theophilus of 

x Tav BiKaicov ra Tvvev\iara iv rrj x* l P L aov e '0"ii>, &f ov fir) a\jrr}rai 
fido-avos. Const. Apost. lib. viii. cap. xli. 

y Nihil illic dilationis aut morse est. Judicii enim dies vel 
beatitudinis retributio est seterna, vel pcense. Tempus vero mortis 
habet interim unumquemque suis legibus, dum ad judicium unum- 
quemque aut Abraham reservat, aut poena. Hilar. Pictav. in 
Ps. ii. Oper. p. 52. ed. Bened. 



62 



LETTER VI. 



Alexandria, by others to Simeon Stylites 2 , in speak- 
ing of the just and the unjust when they die, says of 
the former, that his " soul goes forth in joy and 
" exultation with the saints . . . and is brought into 
<c a place of rest, into ineffable joy and perpetual 
" light, where there is no grief, no groaning, nor 
" weeping, no anxiety, but immortal life, and ever- 
" lasting joy*." Of the unjust soul he says that 
" it is seized by devils at the day of death, and led 
" into an obscure, dark, and dismal place, where all 
" the wicked are reserved until the day of judgment 
" and eternal condemnation* " He is thus evidently 
speaking of the intermediate state, and he considers 
the souls of the righteous to be at once in the 
enjoyment of happiness unmingled with any pain 
or evil. 

Such too is the language of St. Basil. The 
moment of death is, according to him, the begin- 

z Ceillier, Hist, des Auteurs Eccl. torn. xv. p. 439. 

a Si anima virtutes hie egregias sibi asciverit, vitamque severam 
et honestam traduxerit ; in die sui exitus, illae ipsae quas hie sibi 
comparavit virtutes earn comitantur, stipantque boni angeli, nee ab 
illo adversario eorum daemone earn sinunt contingi. Verum 
in gaudio et exultatione cum Sanctis proficiscitur, et angelis vic- 
toriae hymnos concinentibus Deo ... in quietis locum perducitur, 
in gaudium ineffabile, in lumen perpetuum ; ubi non est mceror, 
nec gemitus, neque fletus, neque anxietas, sed vita immortalis et 
perennis laetitia. Bibl. Patr. Lugd. 1677, torn. vii. p. 1228. 

b Earn occupant daemones miseris modis lachiymantem ... in 
loca obscura, tenebrosa, et tristia deducentes ; ubi cuncti nocentes, 
ad diem judicii ac aeternee damnationis asservantur. Ibid. 



LETTER VI. 



63 



ning of the believer's happiness : it leads not to 
torments, but to bliss. " If the dissolution of this 
" life," he says, "by which the soul is delivered 
" from the bondage of the flesh, is the commence- 
" ment of true life to those who live according to 

I " God, why are we grieved, as if we had no hope ?" 
St. Gregory Nazianzen, the friend of Basil, still 
more distinctly confirms the truth in the following 

I passage ; " I am persuaded by the words of the 
" wise, that every soul which is good and beloved 
" of God, when loosened from the bonds of the 
" flesh, it departs hence, immediately feels and con- 
" templates the good which awaits it, being purified 
" and delivered (I know not how to say it) from 
" what had darkened it ; and enjoys a certain won- 
" droits pleasure, and rejoiceth, and joyf ully goeth to 
" its Lord, escaping from this life as from a 
" grievous prison, and shaking off the trammels 
" which had bound its wings of thought • and 
£< enjoys (as it does now in fancy) the happiness 
" laid up for it. But after a little it receives again 
" its native flesh . . . and with it enjoys heavenly 
" glory d ." Such, according to this illustrious 
Father, is the state of the departed faithful. They 
are in the immediate enjoyment of happiness with 
God, in the contemplation of the glory into which 
they shall shortly enter. 

c Basil. Epist. ci. Oper. torn. iii. p. 197. ed. Bened. 
d Gregorius Nazianzenus, Orat. vii. al. x. torn, i. p. 212, 213, 
Oper. ed. Bened. 



64 



LETTER V r I. 



Hence, when the Fathers speak of the departed 
righteous, they never think of representing them as 
" struggling in tortures," or as suffering " punish- 
" ments." Their words are full of rejoicing, of 
triumph, and of consolation. Thus Gregory Nazi- 
anzen says of his sister Gorgonia, " I well know 
cc that you now enjoy things more excellent than 
" all that we can behold — the sound of feastings, 
" the exultations of angels, the contemplation of 
" glory, and a purer and more perfect illumination 
fC of the supreme Trinity 6 ." He speaks elsewhere 
of his Father Gregory, Bishop of Nazianzum, as 
being " near to God" and as having " become pos- 
" sessed of the angelical order and boldness." £ 

You have quoted, in support of the doctrine of 
Purgatory, some writings of St. Gregory Nyssene, 
which had been interpolated and corrupted by the 
Origenist heretics. His genuine belief was widely 
different from that which you have attributed to 
him. He believed that the souls of the righteous 
are, immediately after death, in a state of joy and 
glory. Thus in his Funeral Oration on Pulcheria, 
he consoles her mother, the Empress Placilla, in 
the following terms; " Therefore, although thy child 
" hath left thee, she hath departed to the Lord. 
" She hath closed her eyes to thee, but opened them 
" on eternal light. She hath departed from thy 
" table, but hath been received at that of the angels. 

e Orat. viii. al. xi. torn. i. p. 232. 
f Orat. xviii. al. xix. torn. i. p. 332. 



LETTER VI. 



65 



(C The plant hath been removed from this, but hath 
' ' been planted in Paradise : it hath changed from one 
" kingdom to another*." In his Funeral Oration 
on the Empress Placilla herself, he says : " The 
<e good we seek, brethren, still exists : it is not lost. 
" I speak less than the truth. That good not only 
" exists, but is more exalted than before. Do you 
" seek the Empress ? She hath her dwelling in 
cc regal mansions. But do you desire to see her ? 
u You cannot behold her countenance. There is a 
" dreadful guard of angels around her h ." 

I have already (p. 43) quoted the language of 
St. Ambrose in reference to the Emperor Theodo- 
sius. Similar expressions might be produced in 
abundance from his works, in proof of his belief that 
the souls of the departed righteous are in peace and 
joy. I shall merely cite a few of his words in 
speaking of the death of Acholius Bishop of Thes- 
salonica. " I know that he now rests in heavenly 
" places . . . He now enjoys the perpetual reward of 
" his labours, and the bonds of the flesh being dis- 
" solved, is with Christ, amongst . the ministering 
" angels . . . He is now an inhabitant of the regions 
" above, a possessor of the eternal city, of the Jeru- 
" salem which is in Heaven 1 ." Nor is it to be sup- 
posed that St. Ambrose imagined these blessings to 

s Gregorius Nyssen. In Funere Pulcherise Oratio, torn. iii. Oper. 
p. 517. 

h Orat. in Funere Placilbe, torn. iii. p. 529. 
1 Ambros. Epist. xvi. t. ii. p. 819. 

E 



66 



LETTER VI. 



be reserved for the exclusive enjoyment of those 
who were of an eminent and surpassing sanctity. 
He believed them to be shared alike by all the 
righteous after death ; for in allusion to death, as 
being a dissolution of soul and body, he says, 
" What is the meaning of that dissolution, but that 
" the body is dissolved and remains at rest; and 
" the soul turns to its rest, and is free, which, if it 
" be pious, is with Christ*." He elsewhere says, 
" Death is the passing of all things. It is a passing 
" from corruption to incorruption . . . from pertur- 
i( bation to tranquillity 1 ." He therefore encourages 
us to depart from this life without apprehension. 
<f Let us go without fear to our Redeemer, Jesus 
" Christ ... to that assembly of the holy and just. 
' ' For we shall go to our fathers, to those preceptors 
" of our faith . . . where Abraham opens his holy 
" bosom, where there is a paradise of delight ; where 
" there is no cloud, no thunderings m " &c. It is clear, 
therefore, that St. Ambrose believed, that all the 
just are received into happiness immediately after 
death. 

That Prudentius was of the same opinion, appears 
from his placing the righteous in Abraham's bosom, 
in a region of rest and enjoyment. 

Sed dum resolubile corpus 
Revocas, Deus, atque reformas, 

k Ambros. De Bono Mortis, cap. iii. torn. i. p. 392. 
1 Ibid. cap. iv. p. 396. 
ra Ibid. cap. xii. p, 411. 



LETTER VI. 



G7 



Quanam regione jubebis 
Animam requiescere puram ? 
Gremio senis abdita sancti 
Recubabit, ut est Eleazar, (Lazarus) 
Quern lioribus undique septum 
Dives procul aspicit ardens. 

Patet ecce fidelibus ampli 
Via lucida jam paradisi ; 
Licet et nemus illud adire 
Homini, quod ademerat unguis n . 

St. John Chrysostom, in innumerable places, 
confirms the Catholic doctrine which we maintain. 
On those words, " Turn again then to thy rest, O 
" my soul, for the Lord hath rewarded thee," he 
remarks : " You see then, that death is a benefit. 
l( and a rest, for he who hath entered into that rest, 
" hath rested from his works, as God rested from 
" his own ." " Lamentation becomes the wieked- 
" ness of him [who dies at enmity with God], but 
not thee, who art about to be crowned, and to be at 
rest?" "When consoling a friend for the loss of 
one whom he had loved, he says : " Think, to whom 
" he hath departed; and receive consolation. He is 
" where Paul, where Peter, where all the choir of 
" saints are^" He tells a parent deprived of his 
child to think, that " he hath departed to a better 

n Prudentius, Hymn, de Exequiis, Oper. torn. i. p. 362, 363. 
ed. Areralo. 

Chrysost. Homil. de Bern, et Prosd. torn. ii. p. 639. Ed. Ben. 
i" Homil. xxxi. al. xxxii. in Matt. torn. vii. p. 361. 
<i Homil. in illud ' De dormientibus,' torn. i. p. 766. 

e 2 



68 



LETTER VI. 



" place, and hath gone to a more excellent seat ; and 
" that he has not lost his son, but placed him in 
" security V "The righteous/' he says, "whether 
" they be here (on earth) or there, are with the 
ie King, and there much more, and more nearly 8 ." 
In speaking of funeral rites, he enquires : " Do we 
" not glorify God, and give thanks, because he hath 
" already crowned the departed ; because he hath 
" delivered him from his labours ; because, ex- 
" pelting fear, he hath him with himself? Are not 
" hymns and psalms sung on this account? All 
" these things are signs of rejoicing V 

Isidore of Pelusium, a disciple of Chrysostom, 
incidentally teaches the same doctrine, where he 
speaks of a certain person, " having heard that that 
" wise man" (Ammonius Bishop of Pelusium) 
" had fallen asleep, and been received into heavenly 
" places u ." In another place, writing to Theophilus 
on the death of a Christian named Timotheus, he 
says, " The blessed Timotheus, thy brother, hath 
" departed from men . . . ascending to heaven in his 
" soul ; and as I believe, mingling with the exulta- 
" tions of the divine and heavenly powers*." St. 
Jerome, in his epitaph on Nepotianus, says that " he 
" is with Christ, and joined with the choir of the 

r Horn. i. in 2 Cor. torn. x. p. 426. 
s Horn. iii. in Phil. torn. xi. p. 216. 
* Horn. iv. in Hebr. torn. xii. p. 46. 

u Isidorus Pelus. Epist. lib. ii. Ep. 127. p. 179. ed. Paris, 
1638. 

x Epist. cli. p. 197. 



LETTER VI. 



69 



u saints y ." Of Lea who had lately died, he says : 
" For her short labour, she now enjoys eternal 
''felicity ; she is received by the choirs of angels, 
"and cherished in Abraham's bosom 2 ." In his 
epitaph on Paula he says, that " she now enjoys 
" those good things, f which eye hath not seen, nor 
" ear heard, nor hath entered into the heart of 
" man 3 .'" It is quite impossible that if St. Jerome 
had held the doctrine of Purgatory, he could have 
thus described the condition of the departed 
righteous. 

Although St. Augustine, in some parts of his 
works speaks, with doubt and hesitation, of a fire 
which shall save some of those who depart this life 
in sins which are not of a very grievous nature, he, 
nevertheless, constantly teaches, that the just or 
righteous are received into joy after the present life. 
We have already seen some proofs of this (p. 48, 49) . 
He elsewhere maintains, that " if, after the human 
" generation in Adam, a soul be regenerated in 
" Christ, and belongeth to his society, it will have 
u rest after the death of the body, and will receive 
" again the body unto glory. These things con- 
" cerning the soul, I most firmly hold V " All 

y Hieron. Epist. xxxv. ad Heliodorum (al. iii.) torn. iv. pars ii. 
p. 269. ed. Bened. 

z Epist. xx. ad Marcellam (al. 24.) Ibid. p. 52. 

a Epist. lxxxvi. ad Eustoch. (al. 27.) Ibid. p. 688. 

b Augustinus, De Origine animse hominis, Epist. clxvi. (al. 28.) 
torn. ii. Oper. p. 585. 



70 



LETTER VI. 



u souls/ ' he says, tf have, when they depart from 
" this life, their different receptions. The good 
" have joy ; the evil, torments. But when the 
" resurrection shall have taken place, the joy of 
<( the good will be greater, and the torments of 
" the wicked more grievous, because they will be 
" tortured with the body. The holy Patriarchs, 
" Prophets, Apostles, Martyrs, and the good and 

ie FAITHFUL, HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN PEACE ; yet 

" all are yet to receive, at the end, what God hath 
" promised . . . The rest which is given immediately 
" after death, is then received by every one who 
" deserves it, when he dies. The Patriarchs re- 
(c ceived it first : behold how long is their rest : 
" afterwards the Prophets received it : more re- 
" cently the Apostles ; still more lately the holy 
"Martyrs: and now every day, good believei°s c ." 
According to St. Augustine, therefore, the departed 
xighteous are with the Prophets, Apostles, and 

c Habent ergo omnes animse . . . ciim de sseculo exierint diver- 
sas receptiones suas : habent gaudium bona?, malse tormenta. 
Sed cum facta fuerit resurrectio, et bonorum gaudium amplius 
erit, et malorum tormenta graviora : quando cum corpore tor- 
quebuntur. Recepti sunt in pace sancti Patriarchal, Prophetse, 
Apostoli, Martyres, boni ndeles, omnes tamen adhuc in fine 
accepturi simt quod promisit Deus . . . Requiem quse continuo 
post mortem datur, si ea dignus est, tunc accipit quisque cum 
moritur. Priores acceperunt Patriarchse : videte ex quo requiescunt : 
posteriores Prophetee ; recentius Apostoh, multo recentiores sancti 
Martyres, quotidie boni fideles. August. Tract, xlix. in Joan, 
torn. iii. pars ii. p. 623. ed. Bened. 



LETTER VI. 



71 



Martyrs ; and consequently, are in a state of joy, 
and suffer no torment or evil whatever. 

I must pass over various other proofs from this 
eminent Father, and proceed to adduce the clear 
and satisfactory language of St. Cyril of Alexandria. 
cf The Evangelist probably said designedly and 
" necessarily, not simply that he (our Lord) ' died/ 
" but that he e commended his spirit,' i. e. to the 
" Father, according to what was said by him : 
" ' Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit ;' 
{ f and the force of this language laid the commence- 
a ment and foundation of a good hope for us. For 
" I think it should be held, and very reasonably 
" too, that the souls of the holy, when they 
" are departing from their earthly bodies, are 
(l 6 commended into the hands' of a most dear 
" Father, through the goodness and mercy of God ; 
" and are not, as some of the unbelieving have 
" thought, waiting amidst the tombs, expecting 
" sepulchral rites ; nor like the souls of sinners, 
" are thrust into a place of immense punishment, 
" that is, into Hell ; but rather hasten away into 
" the hands of the Father of all, and of Jesus 
" Christ our Saviour, who hath restored this way 
" to us. For he delivered his soul into his Father's 
" hands, that we also might have glorious hopes, 
" firmly thinking and believing that when ive have 
" suffered bodily death, we shall be in the hands of 
ce God, and in a far better state than when we were in 
" the flesh. Wherefore the wise Paul writeth to us, 



72 



LETTER VI. 



" ' I wish to be dissolved, and to be with Christ 4 /" 
" Formerly, indeed, human souls, having put off 
" their bodies, were cast into subterranean prisons, 
" and filled the receptacles of death therein ; but 
" after that Christ commended his Spirit to his 
£f Father, he hath changed this way for us. For 
" now we do not descend to Hell, but rather shall 
" follow him ; and committing our souls to him as 
" a faithful Creator, we shall live for a while in good 
" hope, for Christ shall at length raise us all 6 ." 

Julian Pomerius, a learned presbyter of the fifth 
century f , remarks, that our " contest is at an end 
" when, after this life, certain victory succeeds to 
%e contest ; that all the soldiers of Christ who, 
" through God's assistance, have indefatigably re- 
" sisted their enemies to the end of this present 
" life, may reign in joy in their own country, after 
tf their laborious pilgrimage is at an end g ." The 
author of the works attributed to St. Dionysius 
the Areopagite, which were much approved in the 
Church, and were composed about the fifth century, 
says, that the pious " coming to the end of his 
" contests in this life, is filled with holy rejoicing, 
" and with exceeding happiness enters on the path- 

d Cyril. Alexandrimis, Comment, in Joan. lib. xii. p. 1069. 
torn. iv. Oper. ed. Aubert. 

e De -Recta Fide, torn. v. Oper. pars ii. p. 176. 
f See Ceillier, torn. xv. p. 451. 

s Julian. Pomerius De Vita Contemplativa, lib. i. cap. i. (attri- 
buted to Prosper of Aquitaine.) 



LETTER VI. 



73 



" way of his resurrection 11 ." He adds, that the just 
go to Abraham's bosom, which he thinks "is the 
" divine and happy lot of the blessed Patriarchs, 
" and of all other saints, which receives all those 
" who resemble God into perpetual and most 
" happy perfection therein 1 ." A work attributed 
to Justin Martyr, but which seems to have been 
written also in the fifth century, furnishes another 
evidence of the prevalence of sound doctrine. 
" After the departure of souls from the body, the just 
" are immediately separated from the unjust ; for 
" they are brought by the angels to their fitting 
" places. And the souls of the just are brought to 
" Paradise, ivhere they enjoy the converse and view of 
" the angels and archangels, and even that of our 
" Saviour Christ himself, by vision, according to 
" that which was said, ' We are absent from the 
" body and present with the LordV" 

Aretas, Bishop of Ceesarea in Cappadocia, in the 
Sixth Century, says, that "the souls which are at 
rest in the bosom of Abraham, are deservedly happy 
in the hope of those (heavenly) things which are 
contemplated by the intellect as in a glass ; for it 
has been said by many of the saints, that every good 
man is allotted a fitting place, whence also he may 
form a certain conjecture of his future glory k . 

h Dionys. Areop. Eccl. Hier. cap. vii. p. 141. Oper. ed. 1615. 
i Ibid. p. 147. 

J Qusest. et Resp. ad Orthodox. Qu. lxxv. 
k Aretas, Comment, in cap. vi. Apocalyps. 



74 



LETTER VI. 



St. Eligius, Bishop of Noyon in the seventh cen- 
tury, taught the same doctrine • " that when the 
" soul is severed from the body, it is immediately, 
" according to its merits,, placed in Paradise; or 
e - certainly, for its sins, is precipitated into Hell 1 ." 
St. Theophylact affirms, that ts the souls of the just 
" are in the hand of God ; but those of the wicked 
" are carried hence like that of the rich man m ." 

In addition to these evidences of the Church's 
belief in reference to the blessedness of the departed 
faithful, it would be easy to produce abundant au- 
thorities in opposition to the notions on which the 
doctrine of Purgatory is based — to shew that it was 
not believed that any penalties, whether temporal 
or eternal, await the righteous after this life ; or that 
any sins can be remitted after death. 

The illustrious Confessor, St. Fulgentius, Bishop 
of Ruspa, in commenting on Matt. xxi. 32. 36, 
cx It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, 
" nor in the world to come," entirely subverts the 
foundation on which the doctrine of Purgatory is 
built. " By these words," he says, " our Lord and 
" Saviour did not intimate that any sins will be for- 
" given in the world to come, which have not been 
" forgiven in this world, but shews to those who 
" rightly understand, that no other sins will be for- 
" given in the future world, but those only which, 

1 Eligius, De rectitud. Catholic. Conversations, inter Augustini 
Opera, torn. vi. Append, col. 274. 

ra Theophylact. Comment, in Matt. viii. 



LETTER VI. 



75 



" in this world, have been forgiven in the true 
" Catholic Church. For to her alone did the Lord 
" give the power of binding and loosing, saying, 6 1 
" will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven/ 
" &c. Whatever, therefore, the holy Church hath 
" not loosed in this world, shall remain so indis- 
" soluble, that it cannot by any means be loosed in 
" the future world 11 ." 

St. Gregory Nazianzen directly and formally 
denies that there is any Purgatory in the next life. 
After speaking of the scourges by which God puri- 
fies men in this life, he adds : u It is better to be 
u chastised and purged now, (in life) than to be 
" delivered to that torture (after death) ; since then 
" shall be the time of punishment, not of ex- 
" purgation ." St. John Chrysostom says that 
" the fire shall not hurt the soul which is pure p ." 

In fine, the Fathers condemn the doctrine that 
any punishments are due to remitted sins. " When 
" the guilt is removed/' says Tertullian, "the 
" punishment is so likewise 11 ." "Where there is 
" grace there is remission," says Chrysostom ; " where 

n Hoc verbo Dominus et salvator noster non aliqua peccata 
insinuavit futuro sseculo dimittenda, quae in hoc saeculo dimissa 
non fuerint, &c. Fulgentius, De Remissione Peccatorum, lib. i, 
cap. 24. 

Orat. xvi. torn. i. p. 304, 305. 
p Horn. viii. De Pcenitentia, torn. ii. p. 320. 
^ Exempto scilicet reatu, eximitur et poena. Tertull. De Bap- 
tismo, cap. v. p. 226. ed. Rigaltii. 



76 



LETTER VI. 



" there is remission, there is no punishment*." Au- 
gustine enquires, "Why is it said, ' thy sins are 
" covered?' It is, that they may not be seen. For 
l< why was God to see sins, unless to punish them 5 ." 

" What'' says Fulgentius, " do we suppose 
" cannot be remitted to us, when the Lord ' par- 
' ' dons all our iniquities ? ' What do we imagine 
" cannot be healed in us, when the Lord ' healeth 
" all our infirmities ? ' Or how can he who is 
" healed and just ified be in want of any tiring, when 
" he is { satisfied with good things ?' Or how can 
" it be supposed that he does not enjoy the benefit 
ce of complete remission, who is e crowned with mercy 
" and loving-kindness 1 ?' " 

St. Bernard says : " He so wholly pardoned, 
" and so liberally forgave every injury, that he now 
" does not condemn by revenging, nor confounds by 
" upbraiding, nor loves less by imputing. Some 
" there are who forgive injury so as not to revenge 
<<r it, but still they upbraid. Others there are who 
' ' are silent, though somewhat remains deeply rooted 
" in their minds, and they retain inward rancour. 
" In neither case is there a full pardon. Far from 
" these is the benignant nature of the Godhead. 

r "07rov yap X"*P LS > <rvyx i ®P r i G ' LS ' ottou 8e (Tvyxa>p7]o-is, ovftepla KoXa- 

ais. Horn. viii. in Epist. ad Rom. torn. ix. p. 502. 

s Tecta ergo peccata quare dixit ? Ut non viderentur. Quid 
enim erat Dei videre peccata, nisi punire peccata ? August. 
Enarrat. ii. in Ps. xxxi. torn. iv. 

* Fulgentius, Epist. vii. ad Venantiam, De Pcenitentia. Bibl. 
Patr. 



LETTER VI. 



77 



11 He acts with liberality : he forgives en- 
" tirelyV 

Surely such a doctrine is calculated to inspire 
hope, and consolation, and gratitude to God. We 
hold that when God forgives the justified sinner, he 
forgives entirely. He reserves no torments. He 
entertains no " wrath." He seeks for no " re- 
16 venging tortures." He receives the trembling 
and unprofitable outcast into his bosom, and clothes 
him with garments of joy. He may require works 
of repentance, and may impose afflictions before he 
justifies the sinner ; but justification and sanctifica- 
tion infer the cessation of all wrath, and a full satis- 
faction of Divine justice. The just have therefore 
nothing to fear from God's justice, while they con- 
tinue in a state of justification. They have nothing 
to dread from it in this world or beyond the grave. 

The holy Scriptures, and the united voice of 
Catholic tradition, confirm this doctrine. They 
proclaim rest, and peace, and joy to the departed 
faithful, even from the moment in which the soul 
departs from the body. The opinions of one or two 
individual writers in the fifth or sixth centuries, 
cannot have any weight against such authority. 

I shall only add, in conclusion, that the Catholic 
Church has never defined the doctrine of Purgatory, 
or by any formal act expressed her belief in it ; for 
the Council of Florence was not (Ecumenical, having 

u Bernard. Serm. De Fragmentis, col, 300. Oper, ed. Paris. 
1586. 



78 



LETTER VI. 



been held when the rival, and more numerous 
Council of Basle was sitting ; and accordingly its 
authority is doubtful even amongst Romanists ; 
besides which, it has always been rejected by the 
Eastern Church. And as for the Council of Trent, 
it was not only rejected by a great portion of the 
West, and by the whole Eastern Churches ; but it 
does not even represent the judgment of the Roman 
Churches; inasmuch as its decrees were received 
on a blind principle of obedience, without examina- 
tion or discussion. This I have endeavoured to shew 
in my Treatise on the Church, (vol. ii. p. 23 7, &c.) 
I therefore deny that its decrees are binding on 
Romanists ; and I now invite you to prove, if you 
can, that the Roman Clergy are bound to receive its 
decisions as dejide, except by the discipline of their 
Church, which imposes on its Clergy the Profession 
of Faith of Pope Pius IV. 

I remain, Sir, yours, &c. 

WILLIAM PALMER. 

Oxford, Nov. 26th, 1841. 



oxford : 
printed by i. shrimpton. 



Preparing for Publication. 
LETTER VII.— ON INDULGENCES . 



A 



SEVENTH LETTER 

TO 

N. WISEMAN, D.D. 



ON THE 



DOCTRINE OE INDULGENCES. 



BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A. 

OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD. 



OXFORD, 
JOHN HENRY PARKER; 
G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
1842. 



A 



SEVENTH LETTER, 

8fc. 



§ 1 . Practical influence of Indulgences amongst 
Romanists. 

Sir, 

Comparatively few of those who receive or 
dispute the doctrine of Indulgences, are aware of 
the profound influence which it exercises in the 
Communion of the Church of Home. I have already 
stated that works of piety and charity are made to 
depend very much on Indulgences a ; but this sub- 
ject is of so much importance, and is so closely 
connected with a vast mass of abuses and supersti- 
tions of various kinds, that it merits a more ex- 
tended examination. 

An Indulgence, according to Romanists, is a re- 
mission of the penalties due to remitted sin either 
in this life or in Purgatory ; and it is obtained by 
performing certain conditions prescribed by the au- 
thority which grants the Indulgence. Thus much 
may suffice at present, in order to enable us to 
comprehend the working of the system, which shall 
be considered under various heads. 

a Letter i. p. 29, &c. 
A 2 



4 



LETTER VII. 



I. Privileged Altars. The following descrip- 
tion is given by the learned Thiers of the origin and 
uses of annexing Indulgences to attendance at par- 
ticular Altars — a practice which he considers more 
recent than the Council of Trent. "The first 
notion apparently came from some mendicant 
Monk, who judging that this devotion could not he 
indifferent to his convent, solicited its establishment, 
or caused it to be solicited, at Rome .... He there 
procured a Brief for a privileged altar, for which he 
obtained the approbation of his Ordinary, who w T as 
perhaps an accommodating and obliging person. 
He then had it printed, posted up, and published 
everywhere ; caused tablets to be made, with the 
inscription Privileged Altar in large letters ; set 
them above the altar designed for Indulgences ; on 
the doors of his church ; and over the principal 
gate of his convent ; caused the bells to ring and 
chime in an extraordinary manner ; sent billets to 
every house ; confessors invited devotees to the 
ceremony ; the office w 7 as solemnly performed, the 
church magnificently adorned, and the privileged 
altar above all ; the Indulgences were proclaimed • 
the people came in crow T ds to gain them, confessed, 
communicated, and asked for masses at the privileged 
altar ; the monks who had previously been poor, 
had something to spare ; the community w^as aug- 
mented to dispose of this ; in a word, they derived 
advantage from this new invention. 

"Nothing more was requisite to excite the holy 



LETTER VII. 



5 



jealousy of other mendicants .... They wrote, sent, 
solicited at the Court of Rome, and at length ob- 
tained them .... From the churches of the mendi- 
cants they passed to those of the other regulars ; 
thence to some of the estated Monks, to parishes, 
to Collegiate and even Cathedral churches. It was 
perceived that they brought masses to the mendi- 
cants, and that the payments for these masses were a 
great assistance in supporting communities. Other 
regulars judged that this was a method not to be 
neglected : they, like the mendicants, set up titles 
of privileged altars ; some even went beyond these 
titles, and added, here a soul is delivered from 
purgatory at every mass, and others, while mass 
was said at their privileged altars (especially from 
the Consecration to the end of the Communion) let 
oif little fire-works in the rear, in order to mark 
that at this moment a soul went out of Purgatory 
straight into Heaven ! This I have seen practised 
in a celebrated church, and all Paris might have 
seen it as well as me. 

""As there are always some Monks in monasteries, 
some Priests in parishes, some Canons or Chaplains 
in Collegiate and Cathedral churches, who have a 
little more skill than others to insinuate themselves 
into the minds of worthy people, who also know the 
rubrics and ceremonies, how to dress altars, to make 
bouquets of flowers, to clean and fold the ornaments, 
and to ring the bells better than others, they are 
usually charged with the Sacristy, the Register, 



6 



LETTER VII. 



and the Mass-account ; and in order to deserve well 
of their communities .... one of their first cares 
is, to have a chapel dedicated to some new Saint ; 
a new relic ; or some extraordinary Image ; but 
particularly a privileged altar, in order to make masses 
come to the Sacristy, under pretext of gaining In- 
dulgences and delivering souls from Purgatory. 
The more sensible and enlightened communities, 
parishes, and chapters" pretend not to perceive these 
spiritual artifices, and when they are spoken to with 
a view to stop their course, or at least to banish the 
abuses and superstitions which are but too fre- 
quently met in them, they reply with an indifferent 
tone and in a negligent manner, ' That they have 
nothing to do with such matters ; that it is Father 
this, or Mr. that, who has the care of it ; that they 
let him alone, do not wish to annoy him — that he 
intends well, and that his only object is to engage 
good persons in practices of piety.' 

"They have however, no objection that their 
Sacristies should profit by the emoluments which 
arise from this, and to see themselves thus relieved 
from the expense of providing for the ornaments, 
lights, and repairs of their churches. This is the 
utility of privileged Altars V 

Such is one specimen of the practical working of 
the system of Indulgences. It brings large pecu- 
niary profits to particular Churches; and it -there- 
fore becomes a matter of great importance to the 

b J. B. Thiers, Traite des Superstitions, Liv. vii. ch. xviii. 



LETTER VII. 



7 



clergy, to obtain the annexation of Indulgences to 
the highest possible amount to attendance in their 
churches. Accordingly there seems to be a con- 
tinual struggle to outbid each other in the number 
and variety of Indulgences. 

II. Privileged Churches. The same object is 
also attained by procuring the annexation of Indulg- 
ences to attendance at particular churches. Rodri- 
guez, according to Thiers, states that there are so 
many Indulgences at the Church of St. John Lateran 
at Rome, that u God alone could count them." It ap- 
pears from this writer and from the Jesuit Santarel, 
that the churches at Rome have generally extensive 
Indulgences annexed to them ; and Thiers adds, that 
the greater part of the religious orders, and regular 
congregations, as well as many confraternities, enjoy 
all these Indulgences : Thiers mentions many in- 
stances of such Indulgences annexed td particular 
churches elsewhere, which are, of course, as bene- 
ficial as privileged altars to the pecuniary interests 
of the Clergy. 

III. Confraternities and Associations. The 
Roman Church authorizes an infinite multitude of 
voluntary associations of individuals for various 
purposes, connected more or less with religious or 
Ecclesiastical objects, and rewards their members by 
the grants of Indulgences. This system is entirely 
unknown in the English and the Oriental Churches, 
as it was also in the primitive ages. Its efficiency 

c J. B. Thiers, Liv. vii. ch. xiii. 



8 LETTER VII. 

however is so unquestionable,, that no association 
for any religious purpose, however good, is ever 
formed amongst Romanists, which does not speedily 
seek for Indulgences as necessary to its success. 

Thus for example, in 1822 an Association was 
formed at Lyons " for the propagation of the Faith," 
with a view to aid Missionaries in foreign countries 
by their prayers and pecuniary subscriptions. One 
would have thought that these objects would alone 
have been sufficient to engage the co-operation of 
all pious and sincere members of that Communion ; 
and that all that was necessary was to recommend 
it to general attention on motives of Christian charity 
and of contributing to the glory of God. This was 
not sufficient : it would have been inoperative with- 
out the aid of the system we are now considering. 
" Pius VII," says Bouvier, " regarded this institu- 
tion as salutary, and in order to encourage it, he 
granted to it, in 1823, the following Indulg- 
ences, fyc. d " 

Thus again, the Confraternity of the Holy Sacra- 
ment, established for the purpose of paying respect 
to the holy Eucharist, and of providing the necessary 
ornaments, and supplying lamps to burn in the 
churches, of attending the Sacrament in procession 
though the streets, assisting at certain ceremonies 
with torches, and performing various acts in honour 
of the Eucharist, was not only approved by Paul III. 
in 1539, but Indulgences were annexed to all the 
d Bouvier, Traite des Indulgences, p. 361, 362. 



LETTER VII. 



9 



particular actions which its members were to per- 
form 6 . 

Again, if it be thought desirable to institute cate- 
chizing under any improved system, like that invented 
by Oilier cure of St. Sulpice in the seventeenth cen- 
tury, Indulgences are obtained for all who attend such 
instructions, and receive Confirmation and Commu- 
nion 1 ". 

Confraternities are also established for aiding 
poor persons during pilgrimages, for honouring the 
name of God, and of Jesus Christ, for supporting 
hospitals, for giving marriage portions to poor young 
women, for aiding the poor and infirm, for visiting 
poor lunatics, for offering certain prayers every 
month and providing for the burial of poor persons, 
for instructing the ignorant in church every Sunday, 
for ransoming captives, &c. g All these associations 
are indebted to Indulgences for no small portion of 
their success. There is scarcely a charitable insti- 
tution, or a good work of any kind to which they 
are not annexed. 

IV. Devotions. This is closely connected with 
the preceding branch of our subject, for multitudes 
of Confraternities are established especially with a 
view to promote the practice of certain devotions or 
religious exercises. Thus the Confraternity of the 
Rosary is established for the purpose of repeating 
the Rosary in honour of the blessed Virgin, visiting 

e Bouvier, p. 317, 318. f Ibid. p. 363, 364. 

8 Ibid. p. 325, &c. 



10 



LETTER VII. 



the altars dedicated to its honour, especially on the 
festivals of the Virgin, hearing hymns in her honour, 
causing others to recite the Rosary, &c. It has 
been continually enriched with new Indulgences by 
the various Popes 11 . 

The Confraternity of the Scapular which is insti- 
tuted in honour of the Virgin, and the members of 
which carry on their persons a piece of blessed cloth 
(called Scapular), to the possession of which various 
spiritual privileges are annexed, have also innu- 
merable Indulgences for receiving this cloth ; pro- 
nouncing the name of Jesus ; assisting at religious 
processions ; visiting devoutly the chapels of the 
Confraternity; reciting the little office of the Virgin, 
with acts of contrition ; repeating Litanies contain- 
ing invocations of Saints ; repeating the Lord's 
Prayer and Ave Maria seven times a-day in honour 
of the Virgin, &c. &C. 1 

In like manner the Confraternities for the per- 
petual adoration of the Sacrament k ; for the honour 
of the holy Virgin of Help 1 ; for worshipping the 
heart of Jesus and of Mary ; for offering the prayers 
of the " holy hour" every Thursday™; for promoting 
certain religious exercises in colleges under the di- 
rection of the Jesuits 11 ; and for worshipping and 
invoking particular Saints, such as St. John 
Baptist, St. Joseph, the Twelve Apostles, St. Bene- 



h Bouvier, p. 292, &c. 
k Ibid. p. 323. 
m Ibid. p. 339. 



1 Ibid. p. 301, &c. 
1 Ibid. p. 325. 
n Ibid. p. 349. 



j 

LETTER VII. 11 

diet, St. Roch, the Holy Angels, &c. &c.,° are all 
supported by Indulgences. 

But besides this, if it be thought desirable to 
promote and encourage any new prayer or act of 
worship of God or of the Saints, the mode adopted 
is to annex Indulgences to the practice. All the 
superstitious worship of the Saints is upheld by 
this means, as well as many other rites which are 
more or less tolerable or exceptionable. Such as, 
acts of worship to the hearts of Jesus and Mary p ; 
the repetition of prayers to the Virgin when the bell 
sounds' 1 ; the repetition of the Gloria Patri, of the 
Ave Maria r , of ejaculations to the Eucharist ; visit- 
ing the Eucharist ; kneeling at the elevation of the 
Host ; walking in procession after the same ; repe- 
titions of hymns in honour of the Eucharist ; in- 
voking the names of Jesus and Mary and Joseph ; 
praying before a crucifix • repeating Paters and 
Aves for the dead ; Litanies and prayers to the 
Virgin and Saints and Angels ; the dedication of 
the month of May to the Virgin, &c. &c. s Eccle- 
siastics are rewarded with Indulgences for saying 
prayers* ; Monks and Nuns for taking the vows, 
and entering on Retreats u ; the Laity for dis- 
charging their religious duties. The whole frame of 
religion depends to a great extent on Indulgences. 



Bouvier, p. 368. 

1 Ibid. p. 209. 

s Ibid. p. 215—261. 
u Ibid. p. 266. 



p. 203. 



p Ibid. 
1 Ibid. p. 215. 
* Ibid. p. 263. 



12 



LETTER VII. 



In addition to this, there are innumerable In- 
dulgences attached to the use of Rosaries, beads, 
medals, &c. with the repetition of a prescribed 
number of Paters and Aves in honour of our Lord, 
" of His five wounds/' of His " blood," of the 
" Sacred heart." There are ordinary chaplets of 
the Virgin ; blessed Crosses and medals ; Brigittine 
chaplets ; Indulgenced chaplets Brigittized, &c. ; 
to all of which Indulgences are annexed x , and the 
use of which depends mainly on the doctrine under 
consideration. 

V. Good Works. Not only acts of religious de- 
votion to the Saints and to God are approved by 
the grants of Indulgences, but also various works 
of charity, piety, or utility ; such as resignation to 
the will of God y , prayer for the dying, teaching 
Christian doctrine, mental prayer 2 , visiting prisoners, 
almsgiving, &c. Amongst such works, to which 
Indulgences have been applied, may be further men- 
tioned, crusades against infidels and heretics, or the 
payment of sums of money in aid of such- objects. 
From this source the Pontiffs derived large profits 
during the middle ages a . The erection of churches 

x See these Indulgences in Bouvier, p. 160 — 200. 
y Bouvier, p. 235. 
z Ibid. p. 211. 

a Ibid. p. 16. Fleury, Discours vi. sur l'Histoire Eccl. § 2, 6 ; 
Tournely, De Pcenit. torn. ii. p. 308. " Do I mean to say that 
during the middle ages and later, no abuse took place in the 
practice of Indulgences ? Most certainly not. Flagrant and too 
frequent abuses doubtless occurred through the avarice, and ra- 



LETTER VII. 



13 



and convents, or contributions for their erection, 
is another subject of Indulgences 1 "; and without 
doubt, many of the splendid churches erected under 
the Papal dominion, and especially St. Peter's itself, 
were built with the funds derived from Indulgences. 
The erection of bridges and other useful buildings is 
also considered a sufficient reason to induce the 
grant of Indulgences. 

In fine, pilgrimages to Rome at the Jubilee for 
the purpose of visiting the principal churches are 
encouraged by the grant of Indulgences . Up to 
the period of the Reformation the same privileges 
might be obtained by pecuniary payments in lieu of 
actual visitation of the city of Rome d , but from the 
time of the Council of Trent those privileges have 
been extended to other Churches without pay- 
ment e . 

Thus much may suffice to shew how vast is the 
practical importance of the question now before us. 
I do not say that Indulgences form the sole motive 
to all religious acts in Romanism ; but it is perfectly 
in vain to deny, with these facts before us, that they 

parity, and impiety, of men ; especially when Indulgence was 
granted to the contributors towards charitable or religious founda- 
tions." Wiseman, Controv. Lect. ii. 88. It appears from Amort, 
Theologia, torn. xv. p. 229, that the Indulgence of the Crusade is 
still in force in Spain, and is productive of pecuniary advantages. 

b Bouvier,p.27. Tournely, DePcenit. tom.ii. p. 302. Bellarmin. 
de Indulg. lib. i. c. 12. 

c Ibid. p. 370, &c. d Ibid. p. 380. 

e Ibid. 



14 LETTER VII. 

constitute a great and most important motive to such 
acts. If they do not, then why is it, that acts and 
practices in themselves most laudable, or most ne- 
cessary, or most immediately resulting from the prin- 
ciples of Christian piety or charity, cannot subsist 
without Indulgences ? Bouvier Bishop of Mans says 
that " the prospect of Indulgences engages the faithful 
to frequent the Sacraments, to be more watchful over 
themselves, to correct their faults, and to live tetter. 
It is this which the Roman Pontiffs ordinarily pro- 
pose to themselves in the numerous grants of In- 
dulgences which they are continually making, and 
especially in the solemnities of the jubilee 1 "." So 
influential, indeed, are Indulgences on the practice 
of Romanists, that they have been and are still 
absolutely overrun with forged and spurious In- 
dulgences. Their writers have found it necessary to 
expose the falsity of numbers of grants g . Their Chief 
Authorities have been obliged to suppress them in 
large masses 11 . Their bishops are obliged to be on 
their guard, and to watch narrowly lest spurious 
Indulgences should be put forward 1 . Everything, 

f See Bouvier, p. 27. 

s Thiers spends two hundred and fifty pages of his work in 
shewing that multitudes of Indulgences generally received in the 
Roman Communion are spurious or null. Traite des Superstit. 
torn. iv. liv. vii. 

h Bouvier, p. 38 ; Amort, De Indulgentiis, Disp. vii. p. 242. 
torn. xv. Theologiae; Thiers, Traite des Superstitions, lib. vii. c. 2. 

Benedict, xiv. De Synodo Diceces. L. xiii. c. 18; Bouvier, 
p. 36, &c. 



LETTER VII. 15 

in short, proclaims the vast practical influence of 
the system of Indulgences. 

In truth, if we consider what the doctrine of 
Romanists really is, we shall see immediately the 
reasons which must induce them most eagerly to 
desire Indulgences, and most zealously to practise 
all the works to which they are annexed. You 
hold, then, that after the guilt and eternal punish- 
ment of sin is removed by the sacrament of Penance, 
temporal penalties still remain due to the Divine 
justice either in this world or in the next. You 
believe that the afflictions of life are part of this 
temporal penalty ; that Christians are bound to 
spend their lives in painful voluntary penances in 
order to satisfy God ; that after this life, punish- 
ments of the most horrible description are to com- 
plete the amount of suffering not discharged in this 
life ; that the justified soul is perhaps for thousands 
of years still subject to the wrath and justice of 
God, and suffering tortures far exceeding any that 
can be endured in this life. With such opinions, 
Indulgences, which remit a portion or the whole of 
this temporal punishment, must of course become 
the objects of most intense desire ; and as your 
writers contrive very ingeniously to render it doubt- 
ful, whether in any particular case, the Indulgence 
has been really and certainly attained \ the conse- 
quence is, that Romanists are bound by their own 
principles to continue during their whole lives, the 

k See above, Letter iii. p. 7, 8. 



16 



LETTER VII. 



labour to attain Indulgences, in the hope that some 
may at last be really placed to their account, and 
may thus diminish the tortures of Purgatory. 

Another motive to the acquisition of Indulgences 
is, that they are, in general, made applicable to the 
dead 1 ; so that the living may, by performing cer- 
tain works, to which Indulgences are annexed, ob- 
tain relief for their departed friends and relatives, 
who are supposed to be enduring tortures in Pur- 
gatory. This is without doubt a most powerful 
motive, and combined with what has been already 
said, will sufficiently shew the extreme desire which 
Romanists must have to obtain Indulgences, and 
the strength of the motive which must influence 
them to perform works to which Indulgences are 
annexed. 

§ 2. The Romish Doctrine of Indulgences refuted. 

We are now to consider the basis on which all 
this system depends — the doctrine of Indulgences 
and its proofs. I shall avail myself without scruple 
of your statement of that doctrine, because it is 
strictly in harmony with the general belief of 
Romanists. 

An Indulgence then is: "A remission by the 
Church in virtue of the keys, or the judicial autho- 
rity committed to her, of a portion, or the entire, 
of the temporal punishment due to sin. The infinite 

1 Bouvier, p. 70, &c. 



LETTER VII. 



17 



merits of Christ form the fund from whence this 
remission is derived : but besides, the Church holds 
that by the Communion of Saints, penitential works 
performed by the just, beyond what their sins might 
exact, are available to other members of Christ's 
mystical body 111 ." 

I. It is plain that this doctrine depends entirely 
on the supposition, that temporal penalties remain 
due to the divine justice for remitted sin ; for if no 
such penalties are to be endured, " Indulgences with 
the object of averting them, must be wholly useless 
and absurd. Now it has been already shewn, that, 
there is no proof that God exacts any penalties of 
the kind under the Christian dispensation"; and 
that so far from any debt still remaining due to His 
justice after sin has been remitted, and the sinner 
justified ; the Roman Church herself holds, that a 
state of justification implies the closest union with 
God, and acceptance into His favour and love ; and 
consequently the previous satisfaction of all claims 
of His justice ; for it would be impossible to imagine 
for a moment, that God could receive to His love, 

m Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. 71 ; Ligorio, Theologia Mo- 
ralis, lib. vi. n. 531; Tournely, de Pcenit. torn. ii. p. 251 ; Bel- 
larmin. de Indulgentiis, lib. i. c. 1 ; Bouvier, de Pcenitentia, p. 
290 ; Trevern, Discuss. Amic. torn. ii. p. 232 ; Faith of Catholics, 
p. 349 ; Milner, End of Controv. Lett, xlii ; Hornyhold, Real Prin- 
ciples of Cath. p. 278 ; Walenburch. Controv. torn. ii. p. 20 ; Amort' 
Theol. Mor. torn. xv. p. 1. 

n Letter ii. p. 15, &c. 

Wiseman, p. 39, Letter vi. p. 16, 17. 

B 



18 



LETTER VII. 



those against whom His justice had still heavy de- 
mands, and who were still subject to His wrath. 
The union of the justified with God, and the rich 
graces which they receive from Him, prove beyond 
all doubt that He is fully reconciled to them, and 
that His justice has no further demands. And this 
being the case,, Indulgences (in the Romish sense) 
must be useless and pernicious impostures. 

II. I cannot but remark on the almost incredible 
blindness of those who attempt to prove the Romish 
doctrine of Indulgences from Scripture, to the fact, 
that their own doctrine is entirely subversive of the 
attempt. 

You yourself argue with many others p , that the 
power of granting Indulgences or reinissions of tem- 
poral penalties, " is included in the commission 
given by Christ to His Apostles to forgive or retain 
sins q ." 

But you forget, that according to the doctrine of 
the Council of Trent, and of all your writers, tem- 
poral penalties remain due, after sin is remitted by 
virtue of the authority here conferred. You forget 
that you have yourself asserted, that " upon this 
forgiveness of sins" authorized by the above passage, 
"that is, after the remission of that eternal debt, 
which God by His justice awards to transgressions 
against His law, He has been pleased to reserve a 

p Contr. Lect. ii. 72 : Trevern, Discuss. Amicale, torn. ii. p. 
227. 

9 John xx. 23. 



LETTER VII. 



19 



certain degree of inferior or temporary punishment*;" 
and you seem to forget that this very principle is 
the basis on which the necessity of Satisfactions or 
Penances, the belief in Purgatory, and even the 
doctrine of Indulgences itself, are built. But ob- 
serve, that if this principle be true and sound, the 
Church cannot have the power of remitting tem- 
poral penalties, because they remain clue after her 
power of remission conferred in Holy Scripture has 
been exercised ; and consequently, Indulgences, in 
your sense, are impostures. On the other hand, if 
the power of remitting sin given in Holy Scripture 
does include the power of removing its temporal 
penalties, there are no temporal penalties clue to 
remitted sin ; and consequently Penances for re- 
mitted sins are worse than superfluous ; and In- 
dulgences, with the view of remitting such penalties, 
are equally fallacious and absurd. 

The same observations are applicable to the other 
texts from which the power of the Church to grant 
Indulgences is deduced by Romish theologians : I 
mean the promise of our Lord to St. Peter, " I will 
give thee the keys, &c. And whatsoever thou shalt 
bind in earth," &c. which was afterwards extended 
to the Church. 

It is argued from these passages % that as the 
power here given is general and without exception, 
it must include the power of remitting the tern- 

r Contr. Lect. p. 41. 

s Bouvier, Traite des Inclulg. p. 11 ; Trevern, ubi supra, 

B 2 



20 



LETTER VII. 



poral penalties of sin, as well as its eternal pe- 
nalties. 

I have only to remark, that if it does include such 
a power, then it follows, that Absolution remits the 
temporal penalties of sin ; that such penalties are 
therefore no longer due to remitted sin, and that 
there is no necessity for Satisfactions or Indulgences 
to avert those temporal penalties. If, on the other 
hand, no such power is given by these passages, 
Indulgences, which are acts of that power, are 
unauthorized and unlawful. 

Your doctrine of Satisfaction then renders it im- 
possible for you to maintain, that the above texts 
include any power to remit temporal penalties by 
Indulgences. But besides this, there is another 
proof, that you do not yourselves believe these texts 
to include any such power, because you hold that 
the Sacrament of Penance was announced and insti- 
tuted in them: you believe therefore that the powers 
comprised in them were conferred on Priests, and yet 
none of your Priests can grant Indulgences. Is it 
not plain therefore, either that these texts do not, 
in your opinion, confer the power of granting In- 
dulgences ; or else that you prevent Priests froin 
discharging powers, which you believe them to 
possess de jure divino ? The last alternative you 
will not of course receive : it therefore follows, that 
you do not believe the above texts to include the 
power of granting Indulgences. 

The only example of an Indulgence which you 



LETTER VII. 



21 



and other Romish divines pretend to discover in 
Holy Scripture, is in the case of the incestuous 
Corinthian, in which "the term of punishment is 
abridged and the sentence reversed, before the com- 
pletion of the awarded retribution is arrived ; and 
this was in consequence of the very great sorrow 
manifested by the penitent, which was considered 
an equivalent for the remaining portion;" and this 
is, you say, " precisely what we should call an In- 
dulgence V 

This case is disposed of in a moment, by con- 
sidering that an Indulgence is, according to Roman- 
ists, " a relaxation of temporal penalties due to 
remitted sin." But the penalties imposed in this 
case were not for remitted sin. When St. Paul 
commanded " such an one to be delivered to Satan," 
(1 Cor. v. 5.) he was still apparently in the commis- 
sion of most grievous sin ; and as such, St. Paul 
speaks of him (verse 13.) as "that wicked person." 
Consequently his punishment was not inflicted after 
his sin had been remitted; and therefore the remission 
of that punishment on his repentance was not an 
Indulgence in your sense of the term, but a remis- 
sion of the penalty inflicted, accompanied by an 
act of forgiveness of sin, as the Apostle intimates 
(2 Cor. ii. 7. 10.) where he forgives the offender, in 
the name of Jesus Christ, and authorizes the Church 
at Corinth to do so likewise, as the offender had 
given signs of real penitence. 

t Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. p. 75. 



22 



LETTER VII. 



We next turn to the proofs for Indulgences from 
Christian Antiquity ; and here again I shall take the 
libertv of noticing those which vou have selected 
as the most conclusive. 

Your proofs then are derived from the practice 
of the primitive Church in relaxing the penances 
imposed according to the Canons,, on those who had 
confessed their sins and sought to he restored to the 
communion of the Church. 

You allege, that "there are the strongest reasons 
to believe, that in most cases absolution preceded 
the allotment of this penance, or at least that it was 
granted during the time of its performance " because 
the custom of the Roman and other Churches was, 
to admit penitents yearly to Communion on Holy 
Thursday, "a circumstance incompatible with the 
idea of their receiving no pardon till the conclusion 
of their penance u ." 

The answer to this is, that the penitents recon- 
ciled on Holy Thursday in each year, were those 
who had completed their canonical penance. 

You next assert rightly, that the Church reserved 
to herself the right of mitigating the canonical 
penances, on account of " extraordinary sorrow and 
fervour manifested by the penitent ; or on account 
of " the approach of persecution, when the peni- 
tents would have an opportunity of testifying their 
sorrow by patient endurance, and where it was 
thought inexpedient to leave them unfortified by the 

u Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. p. 76. 



LETTER VII. 



23 



Eucharist;" or in case the penitents were "in 
danger of death," in which case they were, on re- 
covery, to conclude their time of penance ; or 
sometimes " when intercession was made in favour 
of the repenting sinner by persons justly possessing 
influence with the Pastors of the Church ;" or in 
fine, when penitents obtained letters of recommend- 
ation to mercy from the martyrs imprisoned for 
the name of Jesus Christ x . In all these cases the 
Church mitigated the penances which had been 
imposed on sinners, and restored them to Commu- 
nion. Without doubt, innumerable proofs of all 
this may be brought from the Fathers and the 
Councils ; but it can be of no avail to the advocates 
of Indulgences in the Romish sense of the term. 
For be it remembered, that according to Romanists, 
an Indulgence is the remission of temporal penal- 
ties due to remitted sin. The sin is therefore 
pardoned and absolved before the Indulgence can 
be obtained. But in all the instances ever cited 
from the primitive ages, the Indulgence was a neces- 
sary preliminary to absolution : absolution was only 
granted in consequence of Indulgence ; and therefore 
these ancient Indulgences were not remissions of 
temporal penalties due to absolved or remitted sin. 
This is conclusive against your doctrine of Indul- 
gences. 

The truth is, that Indulgences were always in 
primitive times regarded simply as relaxations of 
x Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. p. 77 — 81. 



24 



LETTER VII. 



penances imposed for sins, either by way of remission 
or by commuting them for some less penances. Xo 
one ever thought of regarding them as remissions 
of temporal penalties due to God's justice for re- 
mitted sins. Maldonatus has stated, that the In- 
dulgences granted by the Roman Pontiffs them- 
selves always profess to remit the " enjoined pen- 
ance-"." They do not themselves pretend to remit 
the temporal penalties due to God's justice for 
remitted sin ■ nor to relieve souls in Purgatory. 
These latter uses of Indulgences are merely the 
inventions of Theologians, which are not sanctioned 
either by the doctrines of antiquity, or by the form 
of Indulgences themselves. 

But there is another essential difference between 
Romish Indulgences and those of primitive times. 
It is admitted by Romanists that Indulgences refer 
to the remission of satisfactions due for sin ; but it 
has been proved in a former letter, that according 
to the doctrine of Scripture, Antiquity, and the 
Roman Church herself, satisfactions are not merely 
for the temporal penalties remaining due to sin, but 
for its guilt and eternal penalties 7 -; consequently 
Indulgences do not refer merely to the remission of 
its temporal penalties, but to that of its guilt {culpa) 

y Maldonatus, de Sacramentis, torn. ii. p. 18. It is said that this 
clause has been omitted in modern grants of Indulgences ; doubt- 
less because it too plainly shewed the real and ancient objects of 
those remissions. 

z Letter iv. p. IS— 37. 



LETTER VII. 



25 



and eternal penalties ; and therefore if they follow 
the remission of sin, they are null and void. 

The practice of the ancient Church having always 
been to grant Indulgences as a preliminary to 
Absolution, it remains to be considered how this 
discipline has come to be entirely reversed by the 
Roman Church, which now makes Absolution a 
preliminary to Indulgences. 

Indulgences then in the sense of remissions or com- 
mutations of Canonical Penances, had been found in 
the time of the Crusades most effective instruments, 
in influencing the actions of Christians to such 
works as were thought highly beneficial to the 
Popes, and to the Church generally. But about 
the same time, notions were growing up amongst 
Latin theologians which led to a change of practice 
with regard to Absolution and Indulgences. "At 
the same time," says Fleury, " the practice was in- 
troduced of giving Absolution, even after secret 
penitence, immediately after confession and satisfac- 
tion imposed and accepted : whereas in antiquity it 
was not given unless at the end, or at least after a 
great part of the penance had been accomplished. 
This change was founded on the reasonings of the 
scholastic doctors, that external Absolution ought 
not to be refused to him who, (one should believe,) 
had already received it internally from God, in 
virtue of the contrition which he appeared to have 
in his heart." Tournely a speaks of this custom 
a Fleury, Discours iv. sur l'Hist. Eccl. § 15. 



26 



LETTER VII. 



as introduced in the eleventh or twelfth cen- 
tury 13 . 

The immediate effect of this on Indulgences was 
twofold. First, it made Absolution precede them, 
instead of being preceded by them as formerly. 
Secondly, as the guilt and eternal punishment were 
believed to be removed by contrition and Absolution, 
Satisfactions or Penances were believed only to be 
for temporal punishments ; and Indulgences, being 
remissions of those Satisfactions, were considered to 
act only on temporal punishments likewise. And 
thus the present Romish practice and doctrine were 
introduced, in opposition to those of primitive times. 

These are not merely my statements : they are 
those of Morinus, one of your most learned and 
celebrated authors — whose authority on questions 
of this nature is indisputable. He actually fixes 
the date of your doctrine of Indulgences, as not 
more ancient than the twelfth century . 

Having thus briefly refuted the pretences on 
which the doctrine of Indulgences is advocated by 
Romanists, and shewn its origin ; it remains to 
adduce some further arguments in opposition to 
this error. 

First then, the doctrine of Indulgences as taught 
by you and commonly received by Romanists, has 

b Tournely, Tractatus de Poenitentia, torn. ii. p. 36. Tournely 
proves, p. 42, &c. that while public penitence was in use, Sacra- 
mental Absolution from sins was given after satisfaction had been 
completed. 

c Morinus De Poenitentia, lib. x. cap. 22. 



LETTER VII. 



27 



never been defined by any Council ; for even the 
Council of Trent affirms nothing on the subject 
except that Indulgences are useful A ; and does not 
assert that they are remissions of temporal penalties 
due to remitted sin. 

Secondly, the Eastern Church, and the ancient 
societies of the Nestorians and Monophysites in the 
East, are strangers to the Romish doctrine and 
practice in regard to Indulgences. 

Thirdly, the doctrine of Indulgences is so far 
from contributing to Christian sanctity, that it is 
very injurious to it in several respects. 

In my first Letter it was alleged, that " Indulg- 
ences are made to take the place which Scripture 
and Tradition assign only to considerations con- 
nected with the eternal state ; that they are pre- 
sented to the consciences and hopes of your people, 
to influence them to the performance of duties 
which ought only to be urged on the motives of the 
love and fear of God e ." I stated that "your con- 
fraternities, your charitable and religious works of 
all kinds, are virtually dependent on them f ." You 

d Cum potestas conferendi Indulgentias a Christo Ecclesise 
concessa sit; atque hujusmodi potestate, divinitus sibi tradita, 
antiquissimis etiam temporibus ilia usa fuerit : sacro-sancta sy- 
nodus Indulgentiarum usum Christiano populo maxime salutarem, 
et sacrorum conciliorum auctoritate probatum in Ecclesia re- 
tinendum esse docet et praecipit : eosque anathemate damnat, 
qui aut inutiles esse asserunt, vel eas concedendi in Ecclesia po- 
testatem esse negant &c. Cone. Trid. Sessio xxv. 

e Letter i. p. 29. 

f Ibid. p. 32. 



28 



LETTER VII. 



reply to this, that " the way in which the true 
value of the gift may be estimated, is by its fruits" — 
that my last statement is a tfC powerful testimony" 
to the " value" of Indulgences g — that the country 
" will be most like the Church of God" in which 
works of charity and piety, even performed with 
the stimulant of Indulgences, "are done, not the 
one in which they are neglected V 

It would seem from these answers, as if it had 
never occurred to you, that the value of a work in 
God's sight is to be estimated by its intention or 
motive. You yourselves allow, that the good works 
of an unbeliever are not so pleasing to God as to 
be meritorious of eternal life, because he is without 
proper motives in performing them. He does not 
perform those works to the glory of God. If unlaw- 
ful motives or intentions mingle with good ones in 
the performance of a good work by any Christian, 
that work is partly or wholly vitiated, and becomes 
displeasing to God. 

Now I maintain that the desire of gaining an 
Indulgence for the remission of temporal penalties 
remaining due to the Divine justice after sin has 
been pardoned, is an unlawful motive to the per- 
formance of any work ; because it supposes, con- 
trary to the Catholic truth, that God is still unre- 
conciled to those who are in a state of grace ; that 
His justice has still demands, after it has been 
satisfied by the due application of Christ's infinite 
s Remarks, &c. p. 74. h Ibid. p. 75. 



LETTER VII. 



29 



merits ; and that the justified are objects of his 
wrath and vengeance. Any work based on such 
impressions, or whose motives include such impres- 
sions, cannot but be displeasing to God. 

But every work wrought to obtain an Indulgence 
must be wrought with such views, for as Bouvier 
Bishop of Mans informs us, " All the authors agree 
that, in order to gain an Indulgence, it is necessary 
to have a real intention of gaming it ; whence they 
conclude that in doing a work to which an Indulg- 
ence is attached, but without thinking of it, or 
having had positively the intention of obtaining it, 
nothing is gained 1 ." Consequently, in the perform- 
ance of all works to which Indulgences are annexed, 
there must be an intention of gaining Indulgences, 
that is, of obtaining remission of penalties remain- 
ing due after sin is remitted and justification im- 
parted. 

And hence we may see at once the weakness of 
your defence of Indulgences. Suppose if you please, 
that a greater number of works are produced by 
Indulgences than would be performed without them 
— does this really increase the sanctity of a Church ? 
does it render it more like the Church of God ? 
No : such works are actually more or less displeasing 
to God ; and be their number what it may 5 the 
sanctity of Churches and of individuals is diminished 
by them instead of being increased. It would have 
been far better for men to produce a small number 
1 Bouvier, Traite des Indulg. p. 87. 



30 



LETTER VII. 



of works on pure motives, well-pleasing to God, 
than to have performed a multitude on impure and 
unsanctifled motives. 

But besides this, Indulgences as actually practised 
in the Roman Church, are positively injurious to 
religion, by encouraging a number of devotions 
which are of a superstitious or even idolatrous 
character. The most objectionable prayers and 
addresses to Saints and Angels, recognising them 
as the sources of grace, the objects of our hope and 
confidence, and placing them on a level with God ; 
the most vain repetitions of forms ; and the practice 
of customs which are subversive of true and intel- 
ligent devotion, are all supported by Indulgences, 
and made to take the place of great religious duties. 
It is of such things that Fleury so justly speaks in 
the following passage. 

" New devotions introduced by some Monks have 
tended to the same effect of diminishing the horror 
of sin, and causing the reformation of morals to be 
neglected. One may carry a scapular, and say 
every day the Rosary, or some famous prayer, with- 
out pardoning one's enemies, restoring property 
acquired by evil means, or forsaking immorality. 
Such are the devotions which the populace love : 
which do not engage them to improvement. . . . 
Thence also comes external devotion to the Sacra- 
ment. Men prefer to adore it when exposed to 
view, or to follow it in procession, rather than pre- 
pare themselves to communicate worthily. 



LETTER VII. 



31 



" Since manual labour has ceased amongst the 
Monks, they have exceedingly extolled mental 
prayer, which is in effect the soul of religion, 
since it is the actual exercise of adoration in spirit 
and in truth, prescribed by Jesus Christ Himself. 
But it is easy to abuse it, and in this consisted 
chiefly the heresy of the Massalians condemned in 
the fourth century. . . . The Fratricelli of later 
times resembled them much, and amongst Catho- 
lics even, mental prayer has served as a pretext 
for many abuses. . . . God alone knows the employ- 
ment of one who remains for an hour or two on his 
knees with his arms crossed. This lazy, and con- 
sequently equivocal devotion, has been the most 
common for about five hundred years, particularly 
amongst women, who are naturally more indolent 
and of a livelier imagination 1 '." 

Such are the devotions which Indulgences sup- 
port and render universal in the Roman Communion ; 
and while the belief in Indulgences remains, so long 
will all those practices, thus sanctioned and encou- 
raged, continue to flourish in rank luxuriance. 

But you are disposed to deny, it seems, that 
Indulgences do really form the motive to your 
various works. You assert that ee Confraternities, 
&c. do not depend upon Indulgences 1 " — that In- 
dulgences are not " proposed as motives of good 
works, or considered such by Romanists™." 

k Fleury, Discours viii. sur l'Hist. Eccl. § 15. 

1 Remarks, &c. p. 75. m Ibid. p. 76. 



32 



LETTER VII. 



These assertions, however, will be of little avail 
against the facts which have been produced. It has 
been shewn that the desire of obtaining Indulgences 
must be a distinct motive in performing works to 
which Indulgences are attached, in order to obtain 
Indulgences. It has been shewn that all religious 
and charitable works amongst you have Indulgences 
annexed ; and it has been further shewn, that the 
desire for Indulgences is so general, that the best 
works cannot be performed without their aid ; that 
you are obliged to be continually on your guard 
against forged and spurious Indulgences ; and that 
the doctrine of Romanists necessarily obliges them 
to spend their lives in labours to obtain Indulg- 
ences. This being so, it follows that the desire 
of obtaining Indulgences, must enter into the 
motives which influence Romanists in their works 
generally, and consequently that those works are 
not well-pleasing to God. 

I have thus very cursorily touched on some of 
the principal features of this important subject, but 
am ready to discuss it with you at greater length, 
whenever it may suit your convenience. 

I remain, Sir, yours, &c. 

WILLIAM PALMER, 

Oxford, Jan. Uth, 1842. 



oxford : 

PRINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON. 



AN 



EIGHTH LETTER 



N. WISEMAN, D.D. 



WORSHIP OF IMAGES AND RELICS, 



BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A. 



OXFORD, 
JOHN HENRY PARKER; 
J. G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
1842. 



AN 

EIGHTH LETTER, 



Sir, 

There is no charge which Romanists are more 
ready to repel with indignation and scorn than that 
of idolatrous worship of images and relics. When 
such a subject is even hinted at, we are absolutely 
overpowered with a torrent of invective,, sarcasm, 
ridicule ; with appeals to our common sense, our 
charity, our decency ; with the boldest assertions of 
innocence ; nay even with anathemas against idolatry. 
This extreme sensibility on the subject of image - 
worship will, to the discerning mind, indicate the 
consciousness of some unsoundness, some lurking 
feeling that all is not as it should be. Were Roman- 
ism in truth as free from idolatry as its advocates 
would have us believe, we should find them more at 
ease on the subject than they seem to be. 

Let us cite a few passages in illustration of what 
has been said. 

I shall first produce your own language. You are 
quite indignant on the occasion. 

a 2 



4 



LETTER VIII. 



" Nor yet, my brethren, is this the worst feature 
of the case ; for a graver and more awful charge is 
laid upon us in consequence of our belief : we are 
even denounced as idolaters, because we pay a cer- 
tain reverence, and, if you please, worship, to the 
Saints of God, and because we honour their outward 
emblems and representatives. Idolaters ! Know ye, 
my brethren, the import of this name ? that it is the 
most frightful charge that can be laid to the score 
of any Christian ? Then, gracious God ! what must 
it be when flung as an accusation upon those who 
have been baptized in the name of Christ, who have 
tasted the sacred gift of His body, &c. Assuredly 
they know not what they say who deliberately and 
directly make this enormous charge ; and they have 
to answer for misrepresentation, yea, for calumny of 
the blackest dye, who hesitate not again and again 
to repeat, with heartless earnestness and persever- 
ance, this most odious of accusations, without being 
fully assured (which they cannot be) in their con- 
sciences and before God, that it really can be proved. 
. . . You will not open a single Catholic writer, 
from the folio decrees of Councils, down to the 
smallest catechism placed in the hands of the young- 
est children, in which you will not find it expressly 
taught, that it is sinful to pay the same homage or 
worship to the Saints, or to the greatest of the Saints, 
or the highest of the Angels in heaven, which we pay 
to God a ," &c. &c. 

6 Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, vol. ii. pp. 93, 94. I cannot 



LETTER VIII. 



5 



Let us next hear the Declaration of " the Vicars 
Apostolic." 

" Ignorance or malice has gone so far as to charge 
the Catholic Church with idolatry in the worship of 
the Saints, and of the images of Christ and of the 
Saints. The Catholic Church teaches that idolatry 
is one of the greatest crimes that can be committed 
against the majesty of God ; and every true member 
of this Church shudders at the idea of such a crime, 
and feels grievously injured by so horrid an imputa- 
tion. ... To worship the images of Christ or of 
the Saints, the word is here again understood by 
Catholics only of an inferior and relative respect 
shewn to images. ... To condemn this relative 
regard for images or pictures, would be to condemn 
the very feelings of nature. To charge a Catholic 
with idolatry because the term worship, meaning 
only an inferior and relative regard, is found in the 
ancient and modern Liturgies of his Church, is not 
consistent with candour or charity. The charge that 
the Catholic Church sanctions the praying to images 
is a calumny, and carries with it an imputation of 
stupidity too gross to be noticed V &c. 

Dr. Baines shall speak next. 

" You have been told that ' Romanists worship 

but admire the ingenuity of this disclaimer. You deny that 
divine honours are due to the Saints or their images ; but you 
forget to notice our charge, that divine honours are paid to Images 
of Christ and to the cross. 

b Declaration of Vicars Apostolic, 1826, Section iv. 



6 



LETTER VIII. 



images, as did the pagans of old, and that, like them, 
they give the glory of the eternal God to the works 
of men's hands.' I know how common such accu- 
sations are, and how otherwise respectable are the 
sources from which they spring, or I should fear to 
insult your understandings by supposing that any of 
you are capable of believing them. For is it possible 
that in an age and country which claims to be so 
learned and enlightened, men should be found capa- 
ble of believing that the majority of the Christian 
world are so ignorant, so debased, so stupid, so 
wicked, as to give divine honours to a lifeless and 
senseless image ? Really, my Christian brethren, I 
blush to think it should be necessary to say that 
Catholics, as well as you, know the folly, and detest 
as much as you, the impiety of giving divine honours 
to a lifeless piece of wood or ivory. ... I shall 
then merely add, in the words of St. Paul, in con- 
formity with the repeated decisions of the Catholic 
Church, and in unison with the voice of every Catho- 
lic in the World, anathema to the man who worships 
an image as God, or gives to it divine honours , or 
believes it to possess any portion of divine power or 
virtue, or places his trust in it, or prays to it, or 
believes it to be any thing more than a lifeless, 

c Dr. Baines, following the general doctrine of Roman Catholic 
divines, denies that divine honour or Latria is due to images simply 
per se. This does not by any means imply that he refuses them 
such honour where they are considered as representing their origi- 
nals. This distinction will be noticed further on. 



LETTER VIII. 



7 



senseless lump of matter. . . . And, my bre- 
thren, I will add,, without hesitation or fear, anathema 
to myself if the doctrine I have here explained to 
you is not the true and universally received doctrine 
of the Catholic Church d ." 

But Sir, notwithstanding all these vehement pro- 
testations, it is clear, by your own admissions and 
by those of other Romanists, that the Roman Church 
is not so perfectly immaculate as you would lead us 
to suppose. 

We have first the following admission, " I shall 
be told that the manner in which the poorer Catho- 
lics pray before her (the Virgin's) images and those 
of the Saints, betrays a greater fervour of devotion 
than they display at other times ; nay, that it even 
indicates a superstitious trust in those outward 
symbols themselves. This appearance may be partly 
true*." 

Nor is it merely that appearances are against you, 
a truth which every traveller is ready to attest, but 
Roman Catholics themselves are obliged to admit, 
that those appearances are not fallacious ; in short, 
that there are real abuses in the Roman communion 
on this subject. 

" Experience/ ' says Van Espen, " has long ago 
taught how difficult it is to guard against irreligious 
or superstitious worship, in some degree savouring of 

d P. A. Baines, D.D., Sermon on Faith, Hope, and Charity. 
e Wiseman, Letter to Newman, p. 24. 



8 



LETTER VIII. 



idolatry, in this public and external veneration of 
images and statues, especially when the base gain of 
the priests mingles itself with it, combined with the 
ignorance or excessive credulity of the people. . . . 
Indeed, notwithstanding many decrees of Councils, 
and especially the salutary regulations of the Coun- 
cil of Trent, so great and so various is the supersti- 
tious, and {as it were) idolatrous worship of images 
and statues, amongst the common and unlearned 
people, that the Gallican Bishops (in the ninth 
century) do not seem to have had unfounded appre- 
hensions that the unlearned populace would be with 
difficulty withdrawn from the superstitious worship 
and unfitting adoration of images, if their worship 
were allowed. . . . It is certain that the mani- 
fold superstitious worship of holy images owes, for 
the greater part if not entirely, its origin, progress, 
and stability, to the filthy lucre of priests, either 
secular or regular, which they seek from the popular 
concourse and indiscreet affection of the people to 
certain images V 

The same evils were acknowledged by the learned 
Gerson, in the fifteenth century*. " Judge," said he, 
" whether so great a variety of images and pictures 
in the Church be expedient, and whether they do 
not sometimes pervert numbers of the unlearned 
people to idolatry g ." 

f VanEspen Opera, torn. ii. pp. 240, 241. ed. Lovan. 1732. 
s Gerson, Defect. Eccl. n. 67. torn. i. Opera, p. 207, Ed. Pari?. 

1606. 



LETTER VIII. 



9 



This, Sir, explains in some degree the irritation 
which Romish authors invariably display when the 
subject of idolatry is mentioned. But let us examine 
the subject a little more closely, and enquire whether 
superstitious and idolatrous practices in reference 
to images and relics are mere abuses in the Church 
of Rome, or whether they are not taught, allowed, 
and sanctioned by the highest authorities amongst 
you. 

I undertake then to demonstrate that, notwith- 
standing all your disclaimers, direct and formal 

IDOLATRY WHAT YOU YOURSELVES ADMIT TO BE 

IDOLATRY IS AUTHORIZED AND APPROVED IN YOUR 

COMMUNION, AND THAT YOU ARE PREVENTED BY 
YOUR OWN PRINCIPLES FROM CONDEMNING IT. 

First then, what is idolatry, according to Roman- 
ists ? 

" It is the giving to man, or to any thing created, 
that homage, that adoration, and that worship, 
which God hath reserved unto Himself 11 ." 61 Idolatry 
pays divine honour to creatures 5 ," "Those only 
are idolaters who offer to a creature the honour and 
worship due to GodV Idolatry is, according to 
Ligorio, ''when honour is given to the creature as 
to God. This is done (as Lessius teacheth) not 
merely by sacrifice, but also by any sign of honour, 
by which any one intends to submit himself to a 

h Wiseman, Controv. Lectures, ii. 93. 

1 Hornyhold, Real Principles of Catholics, p. 150. 

j Trevern, Discuss. Amicale, torn. ii. p. 276. 



10 



LETTER VIII. 



creature as to God, e. g. by genuflexion, offering 
incense, uncovering the head k ," &c. It is, accord- 
ing to Amort, " the adoration of a creature as God 1 ." 
Thomas Aquinas remarks that idolatry is a species 
of superstition, "which is chiefly practised when 
divine worship is attributed to one to whom it is not 
due ; but it ought to be paid only to the supreme, 
uncreated God ra ." I need not pursue this point 
any further. All your writers, without a single 
exception, agree that idolatry consists in offering to 
creatures that supreme worship which is only due 
to God. 

Secondly. What, according to Romanists, is the 
supreme worship due to God, or how is it designated 
by them ? 

Bellarmine says, " There are as many sorts of 
adoration or worship as there are species of excel- 
lence. But, as far as relates to the present purpose, 
there are three species of excellence. The first is the 
Divine and infinite excellence, to which corresponds 
the first species of worship, which is called by 
theologians LatriaV "It is to be observed," 
says Tournely, " that there are three sorts of adora- 
tion or worship, Latria, which is due to God only; 
Dulia, which is due to creatures ; Hi/perdulia, which 

k Ligorio, Theologia Moralis, 1. iii. n. 12. 
1 Amort, Theologia, torn. xx. p. 272. 

m Aquinas, Summa Theologia?, Secunda Seeundae. quaest. xciv, 
art. 1. 

n Bellarmin. de Sanct. Beatit. 1. i. c. xii. 



LETTER VIII. 



11 



is bestowed on the blessed Virgin ." " The words 
Latria and Dulia have been rightly employed to 
discriminate properly the supreme worship due to 
God only, from the inferior worship with which 
Angels or Saints are honoured p ." " There are 
some of the common people," said the Wallenburghs, 
' ' who often understand the word ' adoration' as 
signifying the highest honour due to God, which we 
call Latria, or as meaning the adoration of Latria, 
which however has been taught by no Council. 
Nay rather, the second Synod of Nice says that 
images are to be adored, but it adds, not with Latvia^." 
In like manner you cite the following words of 
St. Augustine, as exhibiting the same distinction 
which is made by Romanists. " We venerate the 
martyrs . . . But with that worship which the Greeks 
call Xarpeta, and which in Latin cannot be expressed 
by one word — as it is a worship properly due only 
to the Divinity — with that worship we worship God 
alone 1 "." Trevern, in remarking on a decree of the 
second Synod of Nice which Romanists receive as 
oecumenical, says, " The Council distinguishes by 
these certain characters, the adoration due to God 
alone, from those which may be paid to other ob- 
jects : it calls the first, the adoration of Latria, 
which pertains exclusively to God s ." 

Tournely, De Incarnatione, p. 782. 

P Perrone, De cultu. Creat. cap. i. Preel. Theol. torn. iv. p. 341. 

3 Wallenburch, Controvers. torn. ii. p. 206. 

r Wiseman, Controv. Leet. ii. 113. 

s Trevern, Discuss. Amic. torn. ii. p. 323. 



12 LETTER VIII. 

I ought to apologize for pressing on the attention 
of the reader a distinction so well known, and so 
universally received by all your writers. If you are 
charged with paying idolatrous worship to images or 
relics, you are ready with your reply, "that no 
calumny can be more gross, because the honour 
which you give to images and relics, is infinitely 
inferior to, is altogether different from, that true 
Latria which you only pay to God." 

And, Sir, I am ready to concede, that as far as 
theory goes, Romanists are not guilty of the mon- 
strous absurdity of paying divine worship or Latria 
to stocks and stones per se, or even to Saints and 
Angels when they are represented. To do them 
justice, Romanists are careful enough, in their 
theological writings, and especially in controversies 
with us, to draw distinctions between the Latria 
which they pay to God, and the Hyperdulia, and 
the Dulia which they pay to the Virgin, and to all 
other Saints and their images. I do not charge you 
then with advocating in theory, the lawfulness of 
offering divine honours to the images or relics of the 
Saints\ nor do I say, that you teach the people to 
pray to images. There is quite enough in your 
principles and practice to excite our most serious 
alarm for your condition, without imputing to you 
any thing which you can fairly rebut and deny. 

But what I do mean to assert and maintain is this : 

1 I must except the Virgin, for as it will hereafter be seen, some 
Romish theologians are of opinion that Latria is due to her. 



LETTER VIII. 



13 



that Latria — the very honour due to God alone by 
your own confession, is paid to creatures in the 
Church of Rome — that this worship has been openly 
avowed and recommended by your most eminent 
divines — that it is a lawful practice amongst you 
sanctioned by authority — that it has never been 
censured — that it cannot be condemned by any 
Romanist. 

But to descend to particulars ; I undertake to 
demonstrate, that, according to the doctrine of your 
most eminent theologians, approved by the Roman 
Church, Latria or Divine worship is due to the 
following creatures. Images of Christ ; of the 
Trinity ; of God the Father. Relics of the blood of 
Christ ; of His nails ; His hair ; His flesh ; of the 
true Cross ; of the nails which fastened Him to it ; 
of the spear ; the scourge ; the reed ; the sponge ; 
of the napkin of Veronica ; of the linen cloth in 
which our Lord was wound ; of the coat without 
seam ; of the purple robe ; of the pillar to which He 
was bound when He was scourged ; of the inscription 
on the Cross. Images of the true Cross of any ma- 
terial, such as wood, metal, or ivory. The blessed 
Virgin, and her images and relics. The Scriptures. 
To all these created objects, Latria or the honour 
due to God only, is formally, expressly, and pro- 
fessedly paid in the Roman Communion. 

These points shall be immediately established by 
quotations from your most eminent divines ; and as 
you are for ever asserting that the decrees of the 



14 



LETTER VIII. 



Council of Trent in regard to images have entirely 
prevented the possibility of idolatry, I shall only 
cite from writers who have lived since that Council 
was celebrated. 

1. I shall commence with Azorius. 

" The first question is, "Whether the Cross and 
Image of Christ our Lord ought to be adored with 
the worship of Latria ? There are four opinions of 
the doctors, but in my judgment they may be re- 
duced to two, as I shall hereafter say. 

" The first opinion denies it; so that, according 
to this opinion, the worship of Latria is referred, as 
to its term, to Christ, contained in the image only 
by thought or meditation ; and the Image or Cross 
is only that, in which, or by which, we worship 
Christ, so that it may be truly said, we do not 
worship the Cross or the Image of Christ with 
Latria, but Christ Himself in the Cross or Image V 

He remarks that Alexander, Durandus, Holcot, 
and Mirandula, are all said to have been of this 
opinion. 

" The second opinion affirms that they, (the 
Images and Cross,) ought to be worshipped with 
the adoration of Latria, that is, with the same 
worship, honour, and veneration, with which Christ, 
whose image it is, is worshipped ; for it saith, that 
in a Cross or Image three things may be considered; 
First, the mere substance of the sign or image in its 



u Azorii Institut. Moral, torn. i. lib. ix. c. vi. 



LETTER VIII. 



15 



own nature and per se, which is matter, i. e. wood, 
gold, silver, or stone ; and in this respect it is not 
capable of veneration or worship. The second is, 
the figure, relation, and order, by which a sign or 
image is referred to the original which it represents ; 
for what represents and what is represented, are 
mutually related : in which way also the worship of 
Latria is by no means due ; because this order and 
relation is something created, really distinct from 
Christ, the prototype and original. The third is, 
that the image actually refers to and represents 
Christ, and in this manner, saith Cajetan, the 
worship of Latria is due to it ; so that the 
worship is referred as well to the image which re- 
presents, as to Christ whose similitude it bears V 

This opinion he says, " is received by the common 
consent of Theologians, as St. Thomas, Alexander de 
Hales, Bonaventure, Ricardus, Albertus Magnus, 
Paludanus, Almain, Marsilius, Major, Capreolus, 
and the other more recent writers." 

" The third opinion is that of Gabriel Biel, who 
asserts that worship is due to the Cross and Image 
of Christ, but not that of Latria properly, but im- 

x Secunda opinio affirmat coli debere adoratione Latriae, hoc est 
eodem cultu, honore, et veneratione qua colitur Christus, cujus est 
imago : ait enim, in Cruce vel Imagine posse tria considerari .... 
Tertium est, Imaginem acta Christum ipsum referre et repraesentare, 
et hoc modo inquit Cajetanus 3. par. 9. 25. Art. 3. cultus Latriae 
ei est debitus. Ita ut cultus turn ad imaginem reprsesentantem, 
turn ad Christum cujus similitudinem gerit, referatur. Azorius, 
ubi supra. 



16 



LETTER VIII. 



properly and in a general signification, or by a sort 
of analogy and similitude." 

" The fourth opinion distinguishes in this manner. 
When the image is worshipped on account of that 
which it represents, it is the worship of Latvia ; but 
w T hen on account of itself ... it is not the worship 
of Latria but Dulia y ." 

It may be observed here, that Latria is admitted 
in some sense to be due to the Cross or Image of 
Christ by the advocates of three out of four opinions, 
which, according to Azorius, exist amongst Romish 
theologians. 

Azorius, who upholds the second opinion, then 
considers the objections which may be advanced 
against it from the decrees of the second Nicene 
Synod, and remarks that Ctf the Synod suggests that 
a two-fold worship is to be paid to a Cross ; of 
Latria, on account of the original which it re- 
presents ; and of Dulia, on account of the sanctity 
as it were inherent in it. . . . On the other hand 
it is the constant judgment of Theologians that the 
image should be honoured and worshipped with the 
same honour and veneration with the original ; and 
the Council of Trent seems to intimate this, Sess.xxv. 
In decreto fldei de sacris imaginibus." So that the 
image of Christ is to be adored with Latria. 

We have thus seen, that the true Cross of Christ 
and the Image of Christ are to be adored with La- 
tria. Let us next see what is said of other matters. 

y Azorius, ubi supra. 



LETTER VIII. 



17 



Azorius enquires, " Whether, as a Cross of any 
material is worthy of the worship of Latria, so also 
the nails, spear, scourges, sponge, and crown of 
thorns, made of any materials, ought to be wor- 
shipped with Latria. St. Thomas replies, that 
a Cross of any material ought to be worshipped 
with Latria, because not only the Cross on which 
Jesus Christ hung, is worthy of that worship be- 
cause it touched Christ ; but also inasmuch as it is 
a Cross, that is, a sign and image of Christ hanging 
on the Cross ; but the other instruments of our 
Lord's Passion only deserve the worship of Latria, 
because they touched the body of Christ 2 ." 

Hence it follows that any relics of such instru- 
ments are to be adored with Latria, though images 
of them are not to be so. 

Another question is, " Whether, if any portion of 
the blood shed in the death of Christ, which Christ 
did not resume when He came to life, should exist 
any where, it ought to be worshipped with Latria. 
From what St. Thomas has taught, it is deduced, 
that it ought to be worshipped ; because, although 

z Quaeritur, An quemadmodum Crux cujuslibet materiae cultu 
Latrise digna est, sic etiam clavi, lancea, flagella, spongia, et corona 
spinea ex alia quaelibet materia confecta, cultu Latria? coli debeant. 
S. Thomas . . . respondet, Crucem ex qualibet materia constantem. 
coli debere Latria, quia eo cultu non solum Crux qua Christus 
pependit digna est, eo quod Christum tetigerit ; sed etiam quate- 
nus Crux est, hoc est signum et imago Christi in Cruce pendentis ; 
at verb csetera Dominicae passionis instrumenta soliim cultuni 
Latriee merentur quia Christi corpus tetigerunt. Azorius, Ibid. 

B 



18 



LETTER VIII. 



separated from the Divine Word, it yet touched the 
body of Christ ; so that if any of His hairs existed 
any where, or any little particles of His flesh sepa- 
rated by circumcision, they would deserve the 
worship of Latria V 

There are many alleged relics of our Saviour in 
existence, such as hairs, drops of His blood, parings 
of His nails, the prepuce, the napkin of St. Veronica, 
&c. &c. ; all of which are, according to this doctrine, 
to be worshipped with Latria. 

In fine, Azorius states his own belief to be, that 
the worship due to images is, " Latria, if we wor- 
ship the image of Christ ; Hyperdulia if it be the 
image of the Virgin ; or Dulia if we worship the 
images of the Saints dwelling in heavenV 

2. The next Theologian to whom I shall appeal is 
Cabrera. 

In speaking of the different opinions of Roman 
Catholic Divines on this point, he says, that the 
" First is, that images are to be adored on account 
of the prototype ; yet not with the same adoration, 
but with another inferior." He cites some writers 

a Quasritur, An si alicubi superesset aliqua portio sanguinis in 
morte Christi effusi, quam Christus redivivus non resumpserit, coli 
deberet Latria ? Ex his quae tradidit S.Thomas .... deducitur 
coli debere, quia etsi a Verbo Divino esset reipsa disjunctus, tetigit 
tamen corpus Christi ; ut si aliqui capilli ejusdem uspiam extarent, 
aut aliquae exiguae particular camis per circumcision em abscissae, 
cultum Latrise mererentur. Azorius, Ibid. 

b Si sit imago Christi, est Latrise : si Deiparse, hyperdulia? : si 
aliorum sanctorum cum Christo in coelo viventium, dulia 3 . Ibid. 



LETTER VIII. 19 

who held this opinion, and who thought that the 
image of Christ should not be adored with Latria, 
or else that Latria should be only offered to it 
analogice '." 

" The second opinion teaches that the same 
adoration altogether should be exhibited to the 
images and the things they represent ; so that the 
Image of Christ is to be adored with the Latria 
with which Christ Himself is worshipped ; that of 
the Virgin with Hyperdulia ; and so of the rest." 

This, he says, is the doctrine of St. Thomas, 
Cajetan, Capreolus, Paludanus, Ferrariensis, St. 
Antoninus, Soto, " and almost all the ancient Theolo- 
gians of Alexander Alensis, Albertus Magnus, 
Bonaventure, Richard St. Victor, Dionysius Carthu- 
sianus, Major, Marsilius, Waldensis, Tunecremata, 
Angestus against Luther, Clichtoveeus, Turrianus, 
Vasquez, ie and many others more recently' 1 ." 

This doctrine is, according to Cabrera, proved 
from the Council of Trent, from " the Seventh Synod,'" 
from the Fathers, &c. ; and he maintains that it is 
" most true, most pious, and very consonant to the 
decrees of faith e ." 

Cabrera replies to all the objections which are 
alleged from the Councils of Nice and Trent, and 
establishes the above doctrine from both of those 
Councils f . He even maintains that it is de fide. 

c Pet. de Cabrera, in iii. part. S. Thomse, Commen. torn. ii. 
p. 639. Ed. 1602. 

d lb. p. 641. e lb. p. 644. f lb. p. 646. 

B 2 



20 



LETTER VIII. 



"From this explanation of the Council of Nice, 
collected from the Fathers, it seems to follow that 
it is a dogma of the faith, that the image of Christ 
and the Cross also, are to be adored with L atria ; 
although it seems to many in this age, that it has 
not yet been defined by a Council, but only that 
images should be honoured with due veneration ; 
but that it has not been defined what this veneration 
should be g ." 

With more particular reference to the Cross, 
Cabrera deduces from St. Thomas Aquinas the fol- 
lowing conclusions. 

" First — The Cross on which Christ was crucified 
is to be adored with Latria, both because it repre- 
sents the form of Christ extended on it, and because 
it was sanctified by the contact of the members of 
Christ, and bathed in His blood V The proof is 
as follows : " The adoration of Latria is due 
to that thing in which the hope of salvation 
is placed, but the hope of salvation is placed 
in the Cross of Christ, according to that hymn 
of the Church, ' O Crux ave, spes unica,' &c. 
Therefore, &c. Secondly, because we speak to 

£ Ex hac explicatione Concilii Nicseni collecti ex Patribus videtur 
sequi, esse dogma fidei, quod Christi imago et similiter Crux 
sit adoranda Latria. p. 647. 

h Prima conclusio. Crux in qua Christus crucifixus est, utroque 
modo adoranda est Latria, et quia reprcesentat formam Christi in 
ea extensi, et quia contactu membrorum Christi sanctificata est, et 
ejus sanguine perfusa. p. 651. 



LETTER VIII. 



21 



it (the Cross) and entreat it, as if it were Christ 
crucified Himself 1 ." 

" Secondly — The image of the Cross of Christ, of 
any materials, is to be adored with LatriaV &c. 

It may be here observed, that the above argument 
from the language applied to the Cross would 
equally go to prove that the Virgin and Saints are 
adored with Latria, as I have produced in my first 
and fifth Letter many addresses to them, which fully 
equal what Aquinas cites in reference to the Cross. 
We may therefore claim Aquinas himself as a testi- 
mony to the idolatrous character of those addresses 
to the Saints. 

Cabrera establishes the first of the above conclu- 
sions from Scripture and the Fathers, u whence," he 
says, " it is evident that the Cross on which Christ 
hung is to be adored with Latria, on account of 
the contact of the members of Christ ; because, on 
this consideration alone, (setting aside its being an 
image) it is a relic of Christ our Lord ; but it is 
certain that relics are to be adored, as will appear 
in Article 6. Whence, as the adoration of Latria 
seems to me to have been defined as a matter of faith, 
to be due to the images of Christ, so also I think of 
His Cross. And a most cogent reason may also be 

1 Illi rei debetur adoratio Latrise in qua spes sakitis ponitur, 
sed in Christi cruce ponitur salutis spes, juxta illud quod canit 
Ecclesia, O Crux ave spes unica &c. Ergo. Secundo, quia earn 
alloquimur et deprecamur quasi ipsum Crucifixum. Ibid. 

k Secunda conclusio. Effigies Crucis Christi in quacumque alia 
materia, est adoranda Latria. Ibid. 



22 



LETTER VIII. 



deduced from the received custom of the Church, 
which addresses the Cross itself as she does Christ 
crucified 1 ." 

He observes that the opinion of those who deny 
that Latria is due to the Cross, or that honour 
is only due to it in remembrance of Christ, is errone- 
ous, and ought to be rejected. 

Cabrera maintains that the second conclusion, 
cited above, is " also to be held as a matter of 
faith™ " i. e. that a Cross of any material is to be 
adored with Latria. 

With reference to the images of the nails, &c, he 
holds, with Aquinas, that they are not to be wor- 
shipped with Latria. He reserves that worship for 
those objects themselves. £tf In the third degree are 
those things which by contact with our Lord par- 
took of His holiness, and remained dignified even in 
the estimation of believers ; as the Cross, nails, 
thorns, spear, &c. ; and these are to be adored with 
Latria 11 ." 

It might be naturally imagined that if the Cross 

1 Unde sicut nobis visa est definita adoratio Latriae de imaginibus 
Christi secundum fidem, sic etiam de Cruce. Et habetur etiam 
argumentum nnnissimum ex consuetudine recepta ab Ecclesia, 
quae . . . ipsam Crucem alloquitur atque ipsum Christum cruci- 
fixum. p. 653. 

m Secunda conclusio D. Thomas est similiter de fide tenenda de- 
finita in 6 Synodo can. 73 and 77. 7 Synodo, et 8 Synodo. Ibid. 

n In tertio gradu sunt ilia, quae ex contactu Domini sanctitatem 
ejus participaverunt, et manserunt dignificata etiam in sestimatione 
fidelium, ut crux, clavi, spina?, lancea, &c. Et hsec sunt adoranda 
Latria. p. 654, 



LETTER VIII. 



23 



was to be adored with Latria on account of its con- 
tact with Christ, other objects might be regarded as 
entitled to the same worship. And here of course 
the Blessed Virgin will at once occur to the mind. 
Accordingly we find that there are various theologians 
who are of opinion that she is entitled to Latria. 
Cabrera shall speak on this very important point. 

After citing from Thomas Aquinas the following 
conclusion, " The Mother of Christ is not to be 
adored with Latria, but with hyperdulia," he observes 
that, " The first part of this conclusion is a dogma 
of faith, since the opposite is the heresy of the 
Collyridians, (as Epiphanius relates, Heer. 78 et 79), 
who worshipped the blessed Virgin as God and 
offered sacrifices to her . . . But whether, by 
reason of her contact with the body of Christ and 
the consanguinity which she had with Christ, she 
may be in some way adored with Latria, has not 
been defined by the Church, but is a matter of con- 
troversy with theologians. On the affirmative side, 
the first argument is, that the insignia of Christ's 
Passion, such as the Cross, spear, crown of thorns, 
&c. are adored with Latria on account of their con- 
tact ; but the Virgin Mother of God was more 
closely united with Christ than the Cross, &c. 
Secondly, because she was the Mother of Christ, 
and therefore should be adored with the same vene- 
ration as the King Himself. Thirdly, because titles 
are given to the blessed Virgin which are only due 
to God ; therefore Latria ought to be paid her with 



24 



letter vnr. 



these titles ; or if it be not, the titles should not he 
either /' &c. 

It may here be observed that according to the 
generally received principle that the same honour is 
due to images and relics as to their originals, it fol- 
lows that the images and relics of the Virgin are to 
be adored with Latria. 

Cabrera produces the arguments of Aquinas in 
opposition, and thus continues. i( Cajetan under- 
stands this to be the opinion of St. Thomas, not 
absolutely and simply, but by reason of scandal or 
danger ; in the absence of which he admits that the 
blessed Virgin may be worshipped with the adora- 
tion of Latria in respect of her contact alone. 
Other theologians are of opinion that she may be 
adored with Latria, not merely on account of con- 
tact, but also on account of her maternity and con- 
sanguinity p ." 

An vero ratione contactus corporis Christi, et propter sanguinis 
eonjunctionem, quam cum Christo habuit, possit aliqua ratione 
adorari Latria, non est ab Ecclesia definitum, sed est positum in 
controversia theohgorum. Pro parte affirmativa est primum argu- 
mentum ; quia ratione contactus adorantur Latria insignia passionis 
Christi, ut Crux, lancea, corona spinea, &c. Sed Deipara Virgo 
fuit Christo conjunctior quam crux, &c. Ergo. Secundo, quia 
fuit mater Christi ; ergo adoranda est eadem veneratione, qua Rex, 
Tertio, quia beatissimae Virgini tribuuntur tituli qui solo Deo deben- 
tur, ergo cum hujusmodi titulis debet illi exhiberi Latria, aut si Latria 
non deferatur, neque tituli debent deferri, &c. Cabrera, p. 655. 

The second of these reasons will remind you of the language and 
illustrate the meaning of the Tipperary farmer mentioned in my 
first Letter. 

2 Hanc D. Thomae sententiam intelligit Cajetanus hie non 



LETTER VIII. 



25 



It may be easily inferred from the following senti- 
ments of Alphonso de Ligorio, that there must be 
a large number of persons in the Roman communion 
who would be disposed to receive the doctrine that 
Latria is due to the blessed Virgin. "When an 
opinion honourable to the holy Virgin is discussed, 
if this opinion be neither repugnant to faith, nor to 
the decisions of the Church, and that it has some 
foundation, some support ; to reject, to combat it, 
merely because the other sentiment may be also 
true, demonstrates very little either love or respect 
for the Mother of God q ." Since then the opinion 
that Latria is due to the Virgin on account of her 
contact and consanguinity with our Lord may be 
lawfully held by Romanists, it cannot be doubtful that 
the votaries of the Virgin must regard it as a sort of 
duty to adopt, or at least to favour that opinion. 

Cabrera himself does not agree with this opinion, 
but he does not presume to censure it. 

It further appears from his statement, that the 
name of Jesus and the Scriptures are, according to 
some theologians, to be worshipped with Latria. 

" It is doubted, with regard to this and the pre- 
ceding articles, what is to be said of the worship 
of the name of Jesus, of the names of God, and of 

absolute et simpliciter, sed ratione scandali aut periculi, quo 
cessante concedit posse B. Virginem coli adoratione Latrise ratione 
solius contactus. Alii theologi opinantur non solum ratione con- 
tactus, verum etiam ratione maternitatis propter sanguinis con- 
junctionem posse adorari Latria. p. 655. 
Q - Glories of Mary, chap. v. 



26 



LETTER VIII. 



the Holy Scripture. Some answer in the very same 
manner as regards images, because they are signs 
and notes,, to which therefore the same adoration is 
due as to the things sig?iified r " 

3. Gregory de Valentia maintains the following 
position. " Images are to be honoured with the 
same honour as their prototypes, and therefore the 
images of Christ's humanity are to be worshipped 
with Latria 5 ." 

" The question is whether the wood of the Cross 
and other things which are, as it were, relics of 
Christ, as the Sudarium, particles of His blood, and 
such like things, which are customarily shewn, 
ought to be honoured with Latria ... I reply, 
as of the images of Christ, whatever it be that is 
held on no light grounds to have had the habit of 
touching Christ, is most rightly honoured with 
Latria, not per se, but per aliud, as St. Thomas 
explains it . . . The very wood of the Cross 
ought to be honoured with Latria. So also the 
linen cloth or Suclarium of Christ is to be adored 
with Latria, and the nails, spear, &c— So also any 
relics of the blood of Christ. But as far as relates 
to the Cross which is customarily formed of various 
materials, in imitation of that Cross on which Christ 
hung ; it is also to be adored with Latria 1 ." 

r Cabrera, ubi supra, p. 656. 

s Gregorius de Valentia, Comment, in D. Thorn, torn. iv. p. 339. 
Ed. Lugd. 1619. 

1 Qusestio est utrum etiam lignum crucis et alise quasi Christi 



LETTER VIII. 



27 



4. Gretser, one of your most celebrated Theolo- 
gians, writes thus. 

" We have thus far shewn that the Cross of the 
Lord is to be worshipped : it is now to be explained 
more particularly with what species of worship not 
only the original Cross, but its images and signs, 
are to be adored. . . . We assert, in accordance 
with the opinion which is more common, and generally 
received in the schools, that the Cross is to be wor- 
shipped with Latria, that is with Divine worship, 
not indeed per se, but per aliud; not absolutely, but 
with respect and relation to its prototype. To 
which opinion St. Thomas subscribes, and many of 
those who follow his doctrine, as Cajetan, Capreo- 
lus, Gregory de Valentia, and others not a few u ." 
He then proves this doctrine at great length from 
tradition. 

reliquiae, ut sudarium, particular sanguinis, et similia quae ostendi 
solent, debeant honorari Latria. . . . Respondeo, similiter ac de 
Christi imaginibus, quicquid est tale, quod non leviter existimatur 
habere ejusmodi habitudinem contactus ad Christum, rectissime 
honorari Latria, non per se, sed per aliud, ut Divus Thomas 
explicat. . . . Lignum ipsum crucis . . . honorari debet Latria. . . . 
Sic etiam Latria adorandum est Linteum sive sudarium Christi, et 
clavi, et lancea, &c. . . . Sic et sanguinis Christi reliquiae aliquae. . . . 
Quod ver6 attinet ad crucem quae in similitudinem ejus crucis in 
qua Christus pependit formari solet ex variis materiis ; adoranda 
ilia quoque est Latria. Greg, de Valent. ubi supra, p. 343. 

u Asserimus autem cum sententia communiori, et in scholis 
magis trita, crucem colendam esse Latria, hoc est, cultu Divino, 
non quidem per se, sed per aliud, &c. Jac. Gretserus, De Cruce, 
torn. i. p. 169. 1. i. c. 57. 



28 



LETTER VIII. 



Gretser affirms that the same worship is due to 
all the instruments of our Lord's suffering — "the 
nails with which Christ was fixed to the Cross ; the 
spear which pierced His side,, the sponge with which 
He was given to drink, the title of the Cross, the 
pillar to which He was bound when beaten with 
rods, and other instruments of the Lord's Passion 
consecrated by the touch or the blood of Christ V 
To all of these the same worship is due. And we 
learn further from this writer, that these instru- 
ments are still in existence, and are worshipped in 
various parts of the world. The nails are to be 
found in various places 7 . There are relics of the 
title of the Cross at Rome and Toulouse 2 . Many 
thorns and fragments of the crown of thorns still 
subsist a . The column to which our Lord was tied 
is to be found in the Church of St. Praxedes at 
Rome, besides many fragments of the same which 
are shewn elsewhere b . The reed and sponge are at 
St. John Lateran, though part of the latter is also 
in France . The spear is at Paris, and in other 
places d . The napkin of Veronica, with which our 
Lord dried His face, and on which its impress 
remained, is at Turin, together with the linen cloth 
in which He was wrapped in the tomb e . The coat 

x Gretser, ubi supra, c. 54. p. 161. 

y Ibid. p. 284. z Ibid. p. 286, 287. 

a Ibid. p. 288, 289. b Ibid. p. 290. 

c Ibid. p. 290. * Ibid. p. 291-293. 

e Ibid. p. 295-297. 



I 



LETTER VIII. 



29 



without seam still exists, it seems, at Paris, Treves, 
and elsewhere f , not to speak of the purple robe*, 
and many other similar relics, ail of which, together 
with those above mentioned, are, according to the 
doctrine of Aquinas and of the great body of Roman 
Catholic theologians, to be worshipped with Latria or 
Divine worship. 

5. Vasquez maintains at length and with great 
learning, that the image must be worshipped with 
the very same act of worship as the original. " It is 
an exceedingly common and ancient doctrine of the 
divines, which I think true, that the motion of 
adoration towards the image, so passes into its 
prototype and original, that both are included under 
the same veneration ; so that, not even in thought 
can the image be adored per se without the original, 
or separated from it h ." He affirms that " the an- 
cient scholastics . . . say abolutely that the images of 
Christ and of the Trinity, are to be worshipped with 
the adoration of Latria 1 ." 

6. Jacobus de Graffiis, Penitentiary at Naples, af- 
firmed that " We should bestow Latria on the image 
of God, or of Christ, or the sign of the Cross k ." 

f Gretser, ubi supra, p. 300. 
g Ibid. p. 301 . 

h Vasquez, De cultu Adorationis Libri tres, 1. ii. disp. viii. c. 3. 
p. 283. Ed. Mogunt. 1594. 

1 Veteres scholastici . . . absolute dicunt imagines Christi et 
Trinitatis esse colendas adoratione Latrise. Disp. ix. c. i. p. 374. 

k Ut unamquamque imaginem eodem cultu quo ille cujus imago 
est veneremur, id est, ut imagini Dei, vel Christi, vel etiam crucis 



30 



LETTER VIII. 



7« The same doctrine is taught by Francis de 
Sales. " In so far as (the Cross) represents Christ 
crucified, and has been sprinkled with His blood, it 
is to be adored with the same adoration as Christ 
Himself, that is, with Latria 1 ." 

8. Bellarmine recognises the doctrine of Aquinas 
as existing in the Church. He states that " there 
are three opinions/' as to the sort of worship due 
to images, the second of which is, " that the same 
honour is due to the image as to the original ; and 
therefore that the image of Christ is to be adored 
with Latria m ." He argues indeed that " as far as 
regards the manner of speaking, it should not be 
said (especially in Sermons to the people) that any 
images ought to be adored with Latria, but on the 
contrary that they ought not to be so adored 11 ." 
But it is evident that he is only urging the necessity 
of caution in the use of language, so as to avoid 
giving offence. He does not attempt to shew that 
there is any error or sin in offering relative divine 
worship to the images of Christ. He argues that it 
is unadvisable to speak of offering such honours, 
because the Councils and Fathers have not used 

signo prout Dominicara passionem ad mentem revocat, Latriam 
impartiamur. Jac. de Graffiis, Decisiones Aurese, Pars i. 1. ii. 
c. ii. p. 115. Ed. Taurini, 1597. 

1 Franc. Sales, in Tract. Apologise de Vexillo Crucis prsefixo. 

m Bellarminus, De Reliquiis Sanct. lib. ii. c. xx. 

n Secunda propositio : Quantum ad modum loquendi, praesertim 
in concione ad populum, non est dicendum imagines ullas adorari 
debere Latria, sed h contrario non debere sic adorari. Ibid. c. xxii. 



LETTER VIII. 



31 



such language ; because it may be dangerous to the 
people ; and because " This mode of speaking 
offends the ears of (some) Catholics, and affords to 
heretics an occasion for blaspheming more boldly ." 
But as for the thing itself, he is of opinion that " it 
may be admitted that images may be worshipped 
improprie or per accidens, with the same sort of 
worship as their original p ;" or, as he explains it, 
that the image of Christ may be adored with the 
worship due to Christ Himself, not per se, but as it 
represents and is in the place of its original q . In 
fine, he shews that his view is in accordance with 
that of Aquinas and the schoolmen generally ; thus 
recognizing their authority, and attesting the preva- 
lence of their doctrine in the Church of Rome. 

I shall pass over various proofs of the prevalence 
of such views which might be deduced from the 

Quinto, iste modus loquendi offendit aures Catholicorum, et 
prsebet occasionem hsereticis liberius blasphemandi. Ibid. 

p Tertia propositio : Si de re ipsa agatur, admitti potest, imagines 
posse coli improprie, vel per accidens, eodem genere cultus, quo ex- 
emplar ipsum colitur. cap. xxiii. 

•J Ac primum, quod imago possit coli improprie eo cultu quo 
ipsum exemplar, probatur : nam aliquando imago accipitur pro ipso 
exemplari, et ea, quae fierent circa ipsum exemplar si adesset 
prsesens, fiunt circa imaginem, mente tamen defixa in exemplari. 
. . . Tunc autem proprie nullus honor defertur imagini, sed soli 
exemplari : tamen improprie dici potest ipsa etiam imago ho- 
nor ari. 

Quod autem possit imago adorari adoratione ipsius exemplaris, 
proprie quidem, sed per accidens, probatur : nam aliquando .... 
consideramus exemplar ut objective relucet in imagine : et ipsum sic 
reprsesentatum, et quasi vestitum imagine veneramur, &c. Ibid. 



32 



LETTER VIII. 



writings of Turrianus, Stapleton, Costerus, Tanne- 
rus r , and others of your theologians, in the six- 
teenth and seventeenth centuries, and proceed to 
testimonies of a later date. 

9. Amort, in his Theology, published under the 
auspices of Pope Benedict XIV. in 1752, distinctly 
maintains this doctrine. In reply to the question : 
" What is sufficient and requisite in order that the 
worship of Latria (respectively at least) be exhi- 
bited to any thing," answers thus : " It is sufficient 
and requisite that God desires to be honoured with 
an excellent worship in that thing or image, as the 
immediate instruments of our salvation and of His 
own glory. ... It is moreover requisite that 
the thing should have been adopted by Christ to 
share in His glory, and commanded to be honoured, 
and that this should have been manifested to us by 
some sign either tacit or express. But this was 
manifested to us concerning all the parts of His 
body assumed to glory in the resurrection, and 
concerning His five wounds which He retained in 
glory, and concerning the Cross. . . . Since 
therefore Christ glories in His wounds and His 
Cross, and Christians also glory in it, it was fitting 
that God should desire the other instruments, 
(i. e, the nails, sponge, &c.) of our salvation and 

r Turrianus, apud Cabrer. p. 641; Stapleton, Prompt. Cathol. 
part. i. p. 292, Coster. Enchirid. p. 438,439; Tanner, in 2. 
2. Thorn, disp. 4. th. 48. 



LETTER VIII. 



33 



His glory, (assumed to glory) to be held by us in 
exceeding reverence"/' &c. 

Hence it appears that the Cross and other instru- 
ments of Christ's Passion are to be adored with 
Latria, according to the doctrine of Aquinas. The 
same author allows that images of God and of the 
Holy Trinity may be publicly worshipped, provided 
that they are made in a certain manner t ; and the 
context renders it evident that he considers Latria 
to be the proper worship due to such images. 

10. The doctrine of Dens on this subject is of 
peculiar importance, as his work is an esteemed 
manual of the Romish priesthood in these countries 
at the present day. I shall therefore quote from 
this writer at some length. 

" With what worship are the images of Christ and the 
Saints to be venerated ? 

" St. Thomas replies to the question, that images may be 
honoured with the same worship with which their prototypes 
are honoured, but only with a relative or respective worship : 
whence the images of Saints are worshipped with the respec- 
tive worship of Dulia ; those of the blessed Virgin with the 
relative worship of Hyperdulia ; those of Christ and of 
God with the respective worship of Latria [Christi et Dei 
respectivo Latrise cultu.] Many however maintain that this 
respective worship given to images ought to be less than the 
worship given to their prototypes : and hence they infer that 
the worship of Latria is due to no image. They depend on 
the seventh Synod, which says that Latria is not to be given 

s Amort. Theologia, torn. xxi. p. 235-237. 
* Ibid. p. 237. 

C 



34 



LETTER VIII. 



to images because it befits the Divine nature only. But 
others explain the seventh Synod (as speaking) of absolute 
Latria, which is not due to the images of Christ, although 
the respective worship of Latria be due to them ; and they 
are adored with honour less than that due to the prototype : 
which doctrines are not repugnant to each other. However 
it may be, let it be enough for us against the Sectaries, that 
all Catholics teach and prove that images of the Saints are 
to be venerated u . 

" With what worship are relics honoured ? 

<( In a mode and with a worship like that with which the 
images of Christ and the Saints are worshipped (according 
to what was said. Num. xxvii.) and thus, with the same 
ivorship with which the person whose relics they are, but a 
relative or respective worship. . . . Objection 2. A pious son 
does not honour the instruments of contumely with which 
his father was slain : therefore a Christian ought not to 
worship the Cross, or the other instruments of the death of 
Christ, or of the martyrs. ... I deny it. . . . We worship 
the Cross, $c. . . . inasmuch as they were the instruments of 
the victorious Passion and exaltation, which were also 
sanctified by the contact of the Body of Christ or of the 
Saints x . 

" Is the blessed Virgin to be honoured with the respective 
worship of Latria, on account of the contact of Christ, as 
the Cross of Christ is adored ? . . . Thomas replies in 
the negative. The difference is, because the Cross is an 
inanimate thing, the worship of which is in itself only 
respective," &c. y 

11. I shall now produce an example of the sort 
of instruction which is given to the people on such 

u Dens, Theologia, torn. v. p. 45. 
x Tbid. p. 47. y Ibid. p. 48. 



LETTER VIII. 



35 



subjects at the present day. The following extracts 
are made from a Catechism of " Christian doctrine/' 
printed at Florence in 1837. 

M. What is adoration ? \Jadorazione~\. 

D. An act of religion, with which we worship the Divine 
Majesty, and submit ourselves to Him in acknowledgment 
of His supreme dominion. 

M. Of what kind is it? 

D. Of three kinds ; Latria, which is paid to God ; Hyper- 
dulia, which is paid to the Virgin ; Dulia, which is paid to 
the Saints. 

M. Ought we to pay any adoration at all to the images of 
Christ, or of the Virgin, or of the Saints ? 

D. If we consider them only in themselves as a sacred and 
blessed thing, we shew them that respeet only which we feel 
towards a sacred and blessed thing; but considered as the 
representative of a Saint, we ought to adore them with the 
same hind of adoration with which we adore the Saint 
which they represent 7 -. 

12. In fine, the Roman Pontifical fully confirms 
and authorizes the same doctrine. It expressly 
asserts that " Latria is due to the Cross*" i.e. to 

z " Considerate come rappresentative di im Santo, si debbono 
adorare con quell' adorazione, con cui si adora quel Santo che rap- 
presentano." Dottrina Gristiana composta dal Sacerdote Francesco 
Baldini Paroco dei SS. Vito e Modesto All 'Incisa. Firenze, nella 
Stamperia Brazzini, 1837. 

a Ule qui gladium Imperatori prsefert, et alius crucem Legati, 
portans simul ire debent. Crux Legati, quia debetur ei Latria 
erit a dexteris, et gladius Imperatoris a sinistris. Ordo ad recipi- 
endum procession. Imperat. Pontificale Romanum Clementis 
VIII. p. 672. Ed. Rom. 1595 ; Pont. Rom. Urban. VIII. Pars iii. 
p. 109. Paris. 1664 ; Pont. Rom. p. 571. Typis Vaticanis, 1745. 

c 2 



36 



LETTER VIII. 



an image of the Cross, a position which contains 
the doctrine of Aquinas and the schoolmen, that 
the same worship is due to an image as to the original; 
and from which it follows that images of the Trinity, 
of God, of Christ, and of the Cross, as well as relics 
of the Cross, are to be worshipped with Latria. 



It has now been proved that idolatrous wor- 
ship of images and relics, has been authorized 
and sanctioned by the leading Divines of the Roman 
Communion from the time of the Council of Trent 
to the present day. Here none of the subterfuges 
so commonly resorted to by Romanists can avail 
them. It is in vain that they exclaim "that they 
pay no divine honours to the images or relics of the 
Saints." We reply, that this is not our charge. 
We only charge their Divines with recommending 
the worship of images of Christ, of God, of the 
Trinity, of the Cross, of the Virgin ; and relics of 
Christ, of the true Cross, and of the instruments of 
the Passion. It is in vain also that they protest 
" that they do not offer Divine honours to images." 
We understand their distinctions. They do not 
worship images per se, or as they are so much wood 
or stone ; they worship them as representatives of 
their originals. They can therefore deny that 
they worship images, while at the same time they 
do in reality worship them most devotedly. It is 
in vain also that they assure us that they do not 
worship images " as Gods," or " for Gods," or 



LETTER VIII. 



37 



i( instead of God ;" for we know that they do not 
believe that an image of God is itself God ; and do 
not worship it as such. They worship it however 
as the representative of God : and in this view give 
to it the honours due to God Himself. Such are 
the subterfuges to which Romanists are driven in 
their attempt to elude the charge of idolatry. 

But it may be alleged, that such doctrines are 
merely discussed in the theological schools, and 
never enter into popular instruction ; that conse- 
quently there is no idolatry in fact practised amongst 
the people. 

Now in the first place it will be observed, that I 
have quoted a Catechism intended for popular 
instruction, and printed only five years ago, in which 
it is plainly inculcated that the same kind of adora- 
tion is due to an image as to its original. From 
which it follows, that divine honours are due to 
certain images. I would next remark, that the 
doctrines above mentioned have never been restricted 
to the schools; for Bellar mine thinks it necessary 
to recommend that in sermons to the people it 
should not be said that Latria is due to images b ; 
and on the other hand, Vasquez is of opinion that, 
in popular discourses, the method of the old school- 
men, who absolutely affirmed that Latria is due to 
them, is preferable . Cabrera also supposes that 

b Bellarmin. De Reliquiis Sanct, 1. ii. c. xxii. 
c Vasquez, De Cultu Adorationis Libri Tres, 1. ii. disp. ix. c. i. 
p. 374. 



38 



LETTER VIII. 



these doctrines are known to the people d . There is 
in fact no sort of attempt to conceal them ; except 
indeed from the opponents of Romanism. 

Supposing however that they were not expressly 
taught to the people, the danger of idolatry would 
scarcely be in the slightest degree diminished. For 
it is undeniable that Romanists are taught to "wor- 
ship" and " adore" images : the use of those words 
is continual. But, according to the '' : Declaration 
of the Vicars Apostolic/" et the words ' adoration' 
and ' worship' are equally referred,, sometimes to 
God, and sometimes to creatures 6 ." Veron says 
that " certainly the people understand by the word 
'adoration' the absolute worship of L atria f ;" and 
the WaUembiirghs affirm that the people <c often 
understand the word ' adoration' as signifying the 
highest honour due only to God, which zee call 
LatriaV Hence it follows necessarily, that the 
perpetual inculcation in the Roman Communion of 
the worship and adoration of images leads the 
people into idolatry. 

The mere profession of the Christian religion is 
no more an infallible safeguard against idolatry 
than it is against heresy or any other sin. Bossuet 
himself admits that " there might be some reason 

d Cabrera, in iii. part. S. Thorna?. torn. ii. p. 555. Ed. 1602. 
e Declaration, &c. Sect. iv. 

f Certe populus intelligit adorationis nomine cultum Latriae 
absolutum ; iste autem sine dubio non redditur nisi soli Deo. 
Veron, Regula Fidei, § viii. 

B Wallenburcli, Controvers. tom. ii. p. 206. 



LETTER VIII. 



39 



to fear for the ignorant/' that the use of images 
would lead them to "idolatry 11 ." That man is 
naturally inclined to this sin is evident from the 
fact, that the great majority of the world has been 
at all times actually involved in it, and that even 
the chosen people of God under the former dispensa- 
tion became, to a great extent, worshippers of false 
gods. Hence there can be no sort of assurance that 
the mere profession of true religion affords any 
security against idolatry. 

But it is frequently alleged that the Council of 
Trent enacted certain decrees on the subject of 
images and relics which removed all danger of 
idolatrous worship. To this I have to answer first, 
that all the writers whom I have cited lived after 
the Council of Trent, and were so far from admit- 
ting that their doctrine was condemned in that 
Council, that they continually adduce the decrees of 
Trent in confirmation of their own views. Secondly, 
it is evident on examination that the Council of 
Trent made no decision against the doctrines of 
Aquinas and the schoolmen on these points. Thirdly, 
Veron, after mentioning the different doctrines of 
the schoolmen as to the worship of images and 
relics, says, that the Council of Trent observes a 
prudent silence as to these opinions, "and teaches 
nothing else but that ' due honour and veneration is 
to be rendered to them.' Wherefore none of the 
aforesaid (doctrines) is de fide : therefore let them 

h Veron, ubi supra. 



40 



LETTER VIII. 



be kept within the bounds of the schools. You are 
not obliged to subscribe to any of them in order to 
be a Catholic. Subscribe the Council of Trent 
only 1 ," &c. So that, notwithstanding the decrees 
of the Council of Trent, members of the Roman 
Communion are at perfect liberty to maintain that 
Divine honours are due to certain images and relics. 

From what has been said it follows necessarily 
that you cannot warx your people against offering 
relative Latria or Divine honours to the images and 
relics which I have mentioned, as against a sin. 
For in the first place, the Council of Trent has not 
made any decision against the practice. Secondly, 
your most eminent theologians have generally main- 
tained it, and have never been censured for so doing 
by any Popes, Councils, or Bishops. Thirdly, those 
theologians have maintained that their doctrine is 
supported by the Fathers, by theological reasons, by 
the general consent of theologians, by the practice 
of the Roman Church, and by several General 
Councils, including that of Trent ; and according 
to the doctrine of probability generally received by 
Romanists, it is perfectly safe to receive any doctrine 
supported by such grave reasons. Fourth lv, the 
doctrine of Aquinas and the schoolmen is regularly 
maintained in your schools at the present day. 
Hence it is plain that you cannot by any possibility 
teach your people that the above-mentioned idola- 
trous worship of images and relics is a sin. You 

1 Yeron, ubi supra. 



LETTER VIII. 



41 



are on the contrary obliged to admit to them that 
it is lawful, and that it is not idolatrous. 

Hence we may turn over all your Treatises on 
Doctrinal and Moral Theology ; all your directions 
to Confessors ; all your Catechisms and books of 
devotion ; and never find in any of them any con- 
demnation of the practice of offering Latria to the 
images and relics which I have mentioned. It is 
true, that some of your writers argue against it : 
but none of them venture to condemn it ; or to say 
that it is sinful ; or that it is in any degree idolatrous. 
It forms no subject of confession : no penitent is 
ever questioned on the point : no one is ever put to 
penance for offering Divine honours to created ob- 
jects. Idolatry is, perhaps, the most prevalent of 
your sins, and it is that which is the most easily 
tolerated. It would seem to be the object of your 
writers to close every avenue by which a conviction 
of danger on this point could be brought home to 
the consciences of your people. Every doubt and 
scruple is set at rest by the assurances of your 
theologians, that Idolatry consists in worshipping 
images as if they were " other Gods," in opposition 
to the only true God J " — or in worshipping the images 
of false gods like those of the Heathen — or in 
imagining that the Divinity is present in images — 
or in offering sacrifice to images k . They are told, 
that there is no danger of idolatry amongst Chris- 

J Trevern, Discuss. Amicale, torn. ii. p. 336, 339, 
k Ibid. p. 341. 



42 



LETTER VIII. 



tians: — " Now that Christianity has reigned amongst 
us for so many centuries, what danger can be seen 
in images, when the faithful learn from their infancy 
that they are forbidden ' to ask any grace from 
them, or to place their confidence in them/ . . . 
and that if they prostrate themselves, and bend 
their knees before them, it is only to the originals, 
i. e. to Jesus Christ and the Saints, that this sup- 
pliant posture is referred 1 ?" Thus Romanists are 
encouraged to commit acts of the most fearful 
Idolatry without the slightest compunction or 
trouble of conscience. They are satisfied that they 
cannot commit Idolatry ; and, therefore, indulge in 
it without any check or control whatever. 

I have now accomplished the object which was 
proposed in this Letter. I have shewn that Idolatry 
is approved and authorized in the Church of Rome ; 
that it is practised without any censure or effectual 
resistance ; that your people are allowed to commit 
this most fearful of all sins without impediment or 
scruple. What are we to conclude from this ? 

First, may it not be most reasonably inferred, 
that if the authorities of your Communion do not 
actually themselves practise Idolatry, they are sur- 
rounded by an overwhelming mass of Idolatry ; that 
the people and their priests are to a great extent 
given over to that dreadful sin ? Surely, nothing 
but the power and number of those who are inclined 
to Idolatry could prevent your Rulers from vin- 
1 Trevern, Discuss. Amicale, torn. ii. p. 352. 



LETTER VIII. 



43 



dicating the rights of their Creator, if they really 
believed that those rights were infringed. We 
must therefore conclude, either that your Rulers, as 
well as your divines and people, approve of 
idolatrous worship ; or else, that through fear of 
man, they connive at what they know to be most 
damnable sin. In either case, what are we to think 
of the sanctity of the Roman Church ? What are 
we to think of the safety of its members ? And 
what are we to think of those who forsake a Com- 
munion in which Idolatry is not practised, to enter 
one in which it is approved, sanctioned, and prac- 
tised without the least check or control ? 

Secondly, from what has been said, we cannot 
doubt the necessity of the Reformation. If the 
only result of that movement had been to expel 
from amongst us the doctrines of Aquinas and the 
schoolmen on the worship of images and relics, and 
to enable us to oppose an effectual and open re- 
sistance to those doctrines by pronouncing them 
sinful and idolatrous, an incalculable benefit would 
have been obtained — a benefit which was more than 
sufficient to counterbalance numerous evils and dis- 
advantages. 

Thirdly, we may learn to judge more fairly of 
the Reformers. They were brought up in the midst 
of a system deeply tinged with Idolatry, both in 
doctrine and practice. They understood by ex- 
perience, and saw in all its unveiled deformity, 
what we can only learn imperfectly from scarce and 



44 



LETTER VIII. 



ancient writings, or from modern compositions, in 
which the utmost care is taken to conceal the real 
state of things. Their language and their actions, 
therefore, sometimes appear to us exaggerated or 
uncharitable, when the fault lies rather in our own 
ignorance or credulity. Were we possessed of their 
practical knowledge, we should perhaps exceed them 
ourselves in the energy of our denunciations. 

Fourthly, we can sympathize with the feelings 
and principles of Bishop Jewell and other English 
Reformers, who were jealous of the use of images, 
and of certain vestments or ceremonies connected 
more or less, in their own minds, with idolatrous 
practices. Certainly the Cross and the images of 
our Lord had been worshipped with idolatrous 
honours ; and we cannot therefore wonder at the 
indignation which was sometimes expressed on mat- 
ters which we, in our ignorance of the fearful abuses 
connected with them, may regard as innocent, law- 
ful, or even pious and venerable. 

Fifthly, if some errors or defects can be pointed 
out in the doctrine or discipline of societies which are 
separated from the Roman Communion, yet still 
they cannot be greater evils than the existence of 
Idolatry in that Communion. If - some persons 
deny the necessity of Episcopacy ; their error is 
not greater than that of maintaining that the 
Bishop of Rome is de jure divino the Head of 
the Church. If some sects undervalue Con- 
firmation: Rome gives but half of the Eucharist. 



LETTER VIII. 



45 



If the worship of others is meagre or uninter- 
esting, Rome sanctions the adoration of creatures 
with Divine honours. If repentance is almost re- 
duced to a name by some, Rome deprives the 
penitent of all consolation, and pursues the justi- 
fied and pardoned beyond the grave with the 
tortures of hell. If some Churches are divided 
on trivial points and by carnal spirits, Rome enforces 
unity and silence on points where the most sacred 
interests of the truth and the glory of God are 
compromised. If there are needless disputes on 
words in some communities, Rome permits heresy 
and idolatry within her own bosom. If some have 
schismatically separated from the Church, Rome 
has wrongfully expelled many from her communion. 
If there be a spirit of incredulity in some ; Rome 
encourages fabulous miracles, and impostures of 
every kind. If some persons seem in theory to 
supersede the office of the ministry, by the assertion 
of an unlimited right of interpreting the Bible ac- 
cording to the dictates of their private judgment, 
Rome discourages the perusal of the Scriptures, 
and withdraws them from the Church. If the 
ministry in some communities is despoiled of much 
of its legitimate influence, Rome invests it with 
absolute and inquisitorial power, and teaches the 
people to bow before it with a superstitious 
and almost slavish veneration. If some persons 
are hostile even to the most harmless ceremonies, 
Rome encourages a system of display and worldly 



46 



LETTER VIII. 



pomp in the celebration of worship. If enthusi- 
asm and fanaticism are common in sects, Rome 
invests the wildest fanaticism with saintly dig- 
nity, and holds it up to the worship of the faith- 
ful. If sordid self-interest has commonly been at 
the foundation of sects, Rome has permitted disci- 
pline to be relaxed, and superstition and idolatry 
to be disseminated more and more widely, for the 
pecuniary advantage of its priesthood, and for the 
promotion of its own interests. There are, in short, 
very few of the prevalent evils of religion beyond 
the Roman Communion, which may not be con- 
trasted with evils of as great an amount, or even 
still greater, within that Communion. 

In conclusion, I would observe, that if any mem- 
bers of the Church of England are ever disturbed on 
finding that some others of its members have advanced 
unsound positions, and that such persons have not 
been censured as they deserve ; still they should 
remember that we at least can openly resist and de- 
nounce false doctrines, and thus guard the faithful 
against their reception ; while in the Church of 
Rome Idolatry exercises unresisted sway ; and 
priest and people are consigned to its abominations, 
without a single warning voice to tell them that 
they are in the ways of sin and of eternal death. 
I do not mean to say that all members of the Church 
of Rome are obliged to commit this crime ; nor do 
I pretend to say that all actually do commit it. 
God alone knows the extent to which it prevails ; 



LETTER VIII. 



47 



but it is certain that there is no safeguard whatever 
against it in the Roman Communion except the 
special grace of God ; and we therefore fervently 
hope and pray that this grace may abound, to the 
deliverance of many souls from so great and terrible 
a danger. 

I remain, Sir, 

Yours in Christ, 

WILLIAM PALMER. 

Oxford, March 8, 1842. 



OXFORD : 
PRINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON. 



AN 



EXAMINATION 



REV. R. W. SIBTHORP'S REASONS 



FOR HIS 



SECESSION FROM THE CHURCH. 



BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A. 

OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD. 



OXFORD^ 
JOHN HENRY PARKER ; 
G. F. AND J. RIVINGTON, LONDON, 
1842. 



OXFORD : 
PRINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON, 



AN EXAMINATION, 

fine- 



When a man of reputed worth and piety commits 
some grievous crime, or falls into some most dan- 
gerous error, we are startled and almost confounded 
by a variety of contending emotions. At one mo- 
ment we doubt whether reliance can be placed 
on any of those around us ; and perhaps the very 
firmest principles of our own minds may receive a 
momentary shock. At another, we are inclined to 
attribute to infirmity or aberration of intellect ; to 
innate depravity, or passion, or indiscretion, the 
fatal and melancholy events which we contemplate. 

But such doubts and reasonings arise in a great 
measure from an erroneous estimate of the nature 
of man and of the strength of his temptations. We 
unconsciously persuade ourselves, that earnestness 
in religion is a sort of infallible safeguard against 
sin and error ; and satisfied with the evidence on 
which we have ourselves received moral and re- 
ligious truths, we are disposed to underrate the 
force of those arguments by which error sustains 
itself. This disposition of mind occasionally leads 

a 2 



4 



men conscious of their own sincerity to place them* 
selves too readily in the way of temptation, by 
embarking in discussions to which their attainments 
and capacities are wholly inadequate ; and the result 
is, that many souls have (t made shipwreck of their 
faith/' who, under a deeper and juster feeling of 
man's infirmity, and of his dangers, would have 
continued in the enjoyment of those privileges to 
which Divine Grace had called them. 

Errors which appear to have a very slender foun- 
dation at first sight, will, when they are more closely 
considered, require the profoundest learning and 
sagacity to refute them. Our moral sense and re- 
ligious principles cause us at once to revolt from 
many positions, which, if we were to examine and 
discuss them more closely, and to think ourselves 
bound to answer all the arguments adduced in 
favour of them, might perhaps appear in a totally 
different light — might seem to us no longer absurd 
or impossible — -might even assume their place in 
our minds — unsettle all our preconceived notions, 
and precipitate us into actions which, at the begin- 
ning, we should have contemplated with dismay. 

What would be the result, if every one thought 
himself entitled, on the strength of his belief in 
Christianity, to examine all the arguments which 
Infidelity has advanced against it ; and to suffer 
himself to be entangled amidst a thousand artifices, 
false assertions, and sophistries ? It may be pre- 
dicted with certainty, that a very small proportion 



5 



of those who thus rashly threw themselves in the 
way of temptation, would escape without injury to 
their faith. Objections and difficulties might be 
raised in a moment which it would take years of 
patience and of study to solve. In fact, it cannot 
be doubted, that many amiable and intelligent men 
have either been wholly lost to Christianity and to 
virtue, or most grievously unsettled in their faith, 
by too rashly listening to the sophistries of AntU 
Christian writers. 

Heresy, however absurd and monstrous it may 
appear in many cases, has generally enough of 
plausibility to recommend it on a nearer view. We 
have no right to assume, nay we have reason to 
deny, that all those who have fallen into heresies 
have been without earnestness in religion, without 
sincerity, and without intellectual attainments. 
Piety of a certain sort is perfectly consistent with 
great and grievous mistakes. One of the most 
celebrated of the Fathers, a man of the highest 
genius, erudition, and piety, became a believer in 
the absurdities of Montanism. Another, who was 
equally illustrious, denied the eternity of future 
punishments. Arianism, and other ancient heresies 
could number amongst their adherents men of 
genius, and of religious earnestness. Even SocinU 
anism has not always been found united with cold- 
ness and want of piety. We underrate too much 
the strength of arguments which may be advanced 
in support of error. Unitarianism seems to us absurd 



6 



enough ; yet it has advanced arguments which have 
exercised the minds of the ablest Divines, and 
which ordinary men would be unable to answer, 
So also with reference to Dissent — Presbyterianism 
■ — the controversies on Infant Baptism — it requires 
no small degree of information to meet all the diffi- 
culties which may be raised on these points ; and 
those who are embarrassed and confounded by the 
arguments advanced on one side of these questions t 
would perhaps be equally embarrassed if they had, 
in the first instance, considered the other, or had 
given to it an equal degree of attention, 

Thus, the very person perhaps, who is entangled 
in the sophistries of Romanism, and feels himself 
unable to reply to its arguments ; would be as much 
perplexed > if he were attentively to examine some of 
those interpretations of the prophecies which go to 
prove that the Pope is Antichrist, and that all who 
communicate with him are in a state of damnation. 
He would be as little capable of affording a satis- 
factory reply in the one case as in the other. Or 
he would be unable to solve the difficulties advanced 
by Infidelity; or to maintain some of the first prin- 
ciples of morality, or the chief of the social duties, 
against the arguments by which they may be as- 
sailed. 

The fact then, that men of piety and ability 
occasionally relinquish the sounder principles of 
their earlier life, and fall into dangerous errors, 
affords no presumption that their judgment is 



7 



sound, or that their example ought to be followed. 
It may have arisen from indiscretion, from erroneous 
impressions of truth, and from a too low estimate 
of the temptations of error. Its designed effect on 
us should be to impress on us more forcibly the 
Scriptural admonition, " Let him that thinketh he 
standeth, take heed lest he falL" 

These remarks have been suggested by the la- 
mentable step which Mr. Sibthorp has taken, in 
separating himself from the Communion of the 
Church. May this unhappy instance of infirmity 
become a salutary warning to all her younger 
members, leading them to greater distrust of their 
own strength, and a more lively appreciation of the 
dangers to which an ill-regulated curiosity, exercised 
on subjects of great delicacy, may expose them ! I 
cannot but express an opinion, founded on some 
attention to the subject, that very young persons, 
necessarily acquainted, but imperfectly, with Eccle- 
siastical history, and with the elements of Theology, 
should not in conscience expose themselves to the 
temptation of perusing the writings of eminent 
Roman Catholic theologians, and permitting them- 
selves to receive their impressions of that system 
from works composed with the utmost plausibility, 
address, and eloquence ; works in which every ob- 
noxious feature is smoothed down ; in which there 
is much to engage the imagination and the taste ; 
and in which an accumulation of learning is brought 
without much scruple or honesty to bear against 



8 

the truth. It must surely argue too great a con- 
fidence in one's own powers to enter on studies of 
such a nature, without having previously engaged in 
theological studies to a considerable extent ; and 
the Divine blessing cannot be expected to attend on 
attempts so rash ; so little characterized by Chris- 
tian humility. It is certainly essential that those 
who are engaged in the defence of the Church, and 
in the higher walks of theology, should be fully 
acquainted with all that may be said by the oppo- 
nents of the Truth; but it is not by any means 
desirable that the laity, or even the younger clergy,, 
in all cases, should enter on this examination. 

The case now before us affords an illustration of 
the dangers which are incurred by a youthful mind 
in its unequal contest with the subtilties of Roman- 
ism. * It appears from Mr. Sib thorp's statement, 
that " in early life he sought admission into that 
Church, and but for the interference of the Law, 
being then under-age, should have joined her." (p. 3.) 
We are not informed of the process by which this 
resolution was brought about ; but there is reason to 
think that it could only have been caused by inter- 
course with Romanists of superior age and attain- 
ments to his own, and by the perusal of works 
which his imperfect attainments rendered it impos- 
sible for him to answer. The result of this indis- 
cretion was, that he sank beneath the temptation ; 
and it is clear that, although induced to alter his 
intentions for the time, impressions were made, from 



9 



which his mind was never able entirely to disengage 
itself, and which predisposed him to the recurrence 
of the malady when other causes brought it imme- 
diately in his path. 

By what system of reasoning Mr. Sibthorp was 
induced to relinquish his intention of becoming a 
Romanist, and to enter the ministry of the Church, 
does not appear. But we are not left wholly in 
ignorance of the principles with which his mind be- 
came imbued. It appears, then, in the first place, 
that he was of opinion, that Protestants, (amongst 
whom he includes members of the Church of Eng- 
land,) are under a necessity of defending the notion 
that the Church of Christ consists of all denomina- 
tions which agree in fundamental truths, in order to 
justify their separation from the Church of Rome, (p. 
28.) It farther appears, that he viewed the Church of 
England as a society, which took its rise at the Re- 
formation (p. 29. 32.) ; and that he considered her to 
have separated herself from the Church in commu- 
nion with Rome, on the ground of the errors of 
Romish doctrine, (p. 36.) 

It is evident, then, that Mr. Sibthorp could not 
have viewed the Church of England in any such 
light as rendered it a matter of religious duty to 
adhere to her Communion. He identified her with 
all the surrounding sects. The notion of her de- 
scent from the Apostles, seemed to him " startling." 
(p. 32.) He appears, in short, to have been a stranger 
to those views which constitute some of the first prin- 



10 



ciples of a sound Churchman. Under these cir- 
cumstances, and with such favourable impressions 
of Romanism, it is less surprising that he became 
an easy prey to the temptations by which he was 
assailed. 

I now proceed to examine the arguments which 
determined his mind to forsake the Communion of 
the Church, which shall be arranged under various 
heads. 

The Levitical Types. 

Mr. Sibthorp's primary argument is founded on 
the institutions of the Levitical law, as typical of 
Christianity. Of the existence of such a typical 
character there can be, of course, no doubt what- 
ever ; but Mr. Sib thorp makes a very untenable 
assumption when he says that all, "from Israel 
viewed as a nation, down to the smallest ornaments 
of the Tabernacle," (p. 5.) was typical. There is no 
warrant for such a belief in Scripture. The Law is 
indeed " a shadow of good things to come but it 
does not follow that every circumstance and cere- 
mony is typical. Such a supposition leads necessarily 
to extravagance of interpretation, and probably to 
serious errors. 

The next position (p. 6.) is, that the types of 
the Law were not fulfilled in Christ only — that 
some had a further fulfilment in the Church ; and 
that others related to the Church only. I am not 
prepared to deny the truth of this position to a 



! I 



certain extent. But surely Mr. Sibthorp can 
scarcely have been serious when he urges his argu- 
ment by enquiring, ' ' If all the typical institutions 
of the old dispensation found their sole and entire 
accomplishment in Christ, why are any continued 
in the Christian Church correspondent to them ?" 
(p. 7.) 

If he will turn to the pages of any Roman 
Catholic Divine, he may learn from them even, that 
positive institutions of our Lord are binding on 
Christians, even although they may not have been 
typified in the Law of Moses. 

We are now to examine his application of the 
above principle, and the mode of reasoning by which 
the Church of Rome is proved to have been typified 
under the Law. 

We must previously, however, offer a few remarks 
on the nature of a Type. It is clear then that there 
must be a difference of nature between the types of 
the Law and their anti-types, because the Apostle 
describes the former as u shadows' 5 of the latter; 
(Col. ii. 17; Heb. xi.) and there must therefore be 
as much difference between them as between a 
shadow and a real body. The types of the Old 
Testament were always of a different nature from the 
things which they prefigured : e. g. the High-Priest 
entering the earthly Temple, prefigured Jesus enter- 
ing Heaven ; the earthly Canaan, and the Sabbath, 
typified the spiritual Canaan, and the rest that 
remaineth for the people of God. Hence, if we 



12 



find under the Christian dispensation, circumstances 
or institutions of the same nature as there were 
under the Law, they cannot have been typified or 
prefigured by the similar legal institutions. 

This will at once enable us to see the fallacy of 
Mr. Sib thorp's reasoning. He argues that the ex- 
ternal, visible unity of faith, worship, and discipline 
under the Law, typifies a similar unity under the 
Gospel, (p. 8.) and that the Church of Rome alone 
is in possession of such an unity. But it is clear 
that the unity of the Jewish people, if it typified 
any thing at all, must have typified something of a 
different nature from its own. It could not typify 
the visible unity of the Church: it might have typified 
its mystical union in the body of Christ. 

For the same reason the Jewish High-Priest could 
not have typified any similar visible functionary in 
the Church of Christ, (p. 8, 9.) nor could the Priests 
and Levites with their offices, ceremonies, and mys- 
tical vestments, (p. 9.) have been types of any similar 
institutions or classes in the Church \ Nor could 
the " impressive and magnificent ritual," (p. 9.) or 
the feast-days of Israel, (p. 10.) prefigure the same 
things in Christianity. 

Now this being the case — and I cannot think 
that any reasonable mind can fail to see it imme- 

a The Fathers always speak of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, 
as holding offices corresponding to those of Aaron, the Priests 
and Levites. E. g. Tertullian, De Baptismo, c. xvii ; Optatus De 
Schism. Don. lib. ii ; Hieronymus, Epist. ad Evagrium; Leo, 
Epist. 162. 



13 



diately — Mr. Sibthorp's leading argument is at once 
disposed of; for it is clear that there is no evidence 
from the types of the Law adduced by him, 
that the Church was to retain visible union at all 
times under a visible head, or to possess a priesthood 
or a ceremonial distinguished by splendour and 
magnificence. The utmost that can be deduced is, 
that such institutions are not unlawful. 

The typical meaning which Mr. Sibthorp assigns 
to the Presence of God in the Temple, the seven- 
fold light, and the Cherubim (p. 9. 11.), (which he 
supposes to prefigure respectively the Real Presence, 
the Seven Sacraments, and intercourse with Angels 
and Saints,) is certainly more in accordance with 
the nature of the relation between a type and its 
antitype ; but it is clearly to a great degree conjec- 
tural ; and is merely one amongst many applications 
of those symbols which might be made with equal 
probability. For example, the presence of God in 
His Temple may not have been designed to prefi- 
gure any real presence in the Eucharist : it may 
have been the type of His indwelling in the believer's 
soul. The seven-fold light may refer to the gifts of 
the Holy Spirit, as Bede and other Fathers under- 
stand it b ; and indeed it is clear, that Mr. Sibthorp's 
view could not have been taken by any writer before 
the twelfth century, as the earliest authors who men- 
tion seven Sacraments lived at that time . The 

b Bida, De Tabernaculo, c. 17; Oper. torn. iv. p. 1193. 

c Hugo S. Victor and Peter Lombard, A.D. 1130 and 1140. 



14 



Cherubim again, may have signified merely the 
ministrations of Angels round the Throne of God, and 
may not have had any typical character with refer- 
ence to the Christian Church. In the interpretation 
of all those types and symbols there must always be 
a great degree of uncertainty where we are not dis- 
tinctly guided to their meaning by the word of 
God, or even by the concurrent voice of Catholic 
Antiquity. The same remarks apply to Mr. Sib- 
thorp's view of the " daily Sacrifice " as typical of 
the Sacrifice of the Mass. (p. 9. 11.) Supposing 
that the type was not in this case solely accom- 
plished in our Lord, still there is no proof that it 
refers to the Eucharist ; and the Fathers interpret it 
as typifying the Prayers and Services which every 
Christian is bound to offer daily d . 

We may therefore lay aside the argument from 
the typical character of the Levitical institutions, 
and proceed to other points. Mr. Sibthorp, in 
proof of the necessity of visible unity in the Church 
refers to the prayer of our Lord, " that they all may 
be one, as Thou, Father, art in Me/' &c. (p. 11.) 
Surely this does not amount to a prediction that the 
Church was actually to be at all times united. It 
proves nothing more than our Saviour's earnest 
desire that it might be so, and the probability that it 
might not at all times be perfectly one. St. Paul 

d Vide Origen. In Numer. Horn, xxiii. torn. ii. p. 358 ; Hilar. 
Pictav. Oper. p. 535 ; Basil. Oper. torn. ii. p. 52 ; Chrysost. 
torn. v. p. 149, 430 ; Beda, torn. iv. p. 1272. 



15 



urges the duty of union amongst Christians by their 
community of faith and hope ; " There is one body 
and one spirit, as you are called in one hope of your 
calling ; one Lord, one faith, one baptism," &c. 
This merely shews that it is the duty of Christians 
to avoid divisions : it does not assure us that it was 
impossible that the Church should ever be, in fact, 
divided. 

Had not Mr. Sibthorp been carried away by early 
prejudices, and by his theory of the Levitical types, 
he would doubtless have remembered the innumer- 
able instances in which the unity of Christendom 
has, most undeniably, been interrupted. He would 
have dwelt on the divisions in the Corinthian 
Church, even in the Apostolic age ; on the separa- 
tion between the Churches of Rome and Asia in the 
second century ; between those of Rome and Africa 
in the third ; between the Eastern and Western 
Churches in the fifth, the ninth, and the eleventh 
centuries ; and in fine, between the various Churches 
subject to the Papacy, in the fourteenth century. 
He would have remembered, that the most emi- 
nent Romish Divines acknowledge that in very 
many instances where the external and visible unity 
of the Church was interrupted, the promises of 
Christ to His Church were still fulfilled, and were 
inherited alike by each of the contending parties. 
But it cannot be denied that in all these cases 
the visible unity of the Church was inter- 
rupted. 



16 



Had Mr. Sibthorp permitted himself to contem- 
plate these facts, he would not have thought it ne- 
cessary to forsake the Church of England because 
her extent was "limited" or her position " insulated." 
(p. 12.) He would have perceived that such cir- 
cumstances did not militate against her claim to be 
a part of the Universal Church, though not in ex- 
ternal communion with some other branches of it. 
He would indeed have lamented the divisions of the 
Universal Church ; but would not have deemed it 
necessary to separate himself from a pure and sound 
branch of that Church, and to unite himself to a 
schismatical community which a corrupt though 
large branch of the Church had planted amongst 
us. He would have apprehended, that such an act 
of schism and of heedlessness to the revealed Truth, 
however applauded by party, would have as effec- 
tually and really separated him from the promises 
of God, as if he had openly dissevered himself from 
Christianity and from all its hopes. He would have 
been satisfied, that a Church, which at her founda- 
tion, as he admits, (p. 13.) had been united with the 
whole Christian Church ; which had been peacefully 
derived from that Church by spiritual propagation ■ 
and which had never, at any subsequent period, se- 
parated herself from the communion of the rest of 
the Christian world, or been excommunicated by the 
authority of the Church at large, was always en- 
titled to the most devoted adherence, most zealous 
attachment, and most dutiful obedience of all her 



17 



members — on the highest and most sacred of all 
principles — Obedience to the Divine Will. 

Arguments for the Papacy from Reason and 
Scripture. 

Were the kingdom of Christ not directed and 
gnided by the secret influence of the Spirit of God, 
we might readily assent to Mr. Sibthorp's argument 
for the necessity of a visible Head and Centre of 
Unity in the Church, from analogies derived from 
the natural works of the Creator and the rational in- 
stitutions of men. But when we are assured of Christ's 
presence, (Matt, xxviii. 20.) and of the aid of the 
(c Spirit of Truth (John xvi. 13.) when we believe 
that these divine promises are especially made to 
the successors of the Apostles as rulers of the Uni- 
versal Church, we cannot but think that it evinces 
a distrust in the Divine guidance, to urge the neces- 
sity of a visible Head and Centre of Unity. Is not 
God Himself sufficient to guide His Church ? 

The analogy of God's natural government of the 
world would lead us to infer that He has not con- 
stituted any one spiritual Head of the Church ; for 
the world is not subject to any one central govern- 
ment : it is divided into innumerable states. Nor 
does the analogy of the Mosaic dispensation lead us 
to suppose a visible head of the Universal Church 
necessary ; because it might be very convenient and 
possible to place the people of one small country 
under a High Priest, while it might be most ex- 

B 



18 



tremely inconvenient and unfit to subject the whole 
world to a single Individual. 

We now turn to Mr. Sibthorp's argument for the 
Papal Supremacy from Scripture. He refers to the 
well-known passages from Matt. xvi. 16 — 19, and 
John xxi. 15 — 17, and to the peculiar position held 
by St. Peter in Acts ii, iii, iv, x, xii. In reply to 
the objection which naturally occurs both from 
Scripture and from the united voice of Catholic 
tradition, that the powers given to St. Peter, by our 
Lord, were also imparted equally to all the other 
Apostles, Mr. Sib thorp says, ' 1 It is not correct that 
what is allowed to have been once appropriated to 
St. Peter was afterwards made common to all the 
Apostles. No other Apostle shared his office in the 
formation of the Church. To no other Apostle was 
such a solemn exhortation given, to feed the flock 
of God, as to him. And though the Lord did after- 
wards give the power of the keys to all the Apostles, 
that no more affected the previous distinction of the 
separate gift to him, than the Lord's calling all His 
Apostles beloved, affects the claim of St. John to 
be pre-eminently the beloved disciple." (p. 17.) 

This is all very true, but it will not avail either 
to shew the jurisdiction of St. Peter over the other 
Apostles, or the transmission of such a Supremacy 
to the Bishops of Rome. The privileges of St. Peter 
were strictly personal and incapable of transmission. 
The Church could only be once founded by his 
preaching. The Gentiles could be introduced for 



19 



the first time into the kingdom of Heaven by his 
means but once. If he was peculiarly exhorted to 
feed the Church of God in proof of his love, he alone 
had denied Christ. There is not a shadow of pre- 
sumption that the special privileges of St. Peter 
could have extended beyond himself or been trans- 
mitted to any successors. 

This will suffice to shew the fallacy of Mr. Sib- 
thorp's argument for the existence of a (i Primacy 
and Centre of Unity in the Church " after the time 
of St. Peter, derived from our Saviour's having left 
the Church " in constant expectation of His return," 
and His expecting, "to find her so constituted and 
united, whether He delayed His coming for twenty 
or two thousand years." (p. 18.) For it is plain 
that St. Peter had no jurisdiction over the Apostles ; 
that his privileges were only marks of honour ; that 
they were incapable of being communicated to others. 

Mr. Sib thorp is obliged to concede that in the 
earlier ages of the Church there was not " that clear 
perception of the designed succession to St. Peter, 
which the ninth and tenth centuries present/' (p. 
19.) and he speaks of " the development" of the 
Papacy as being gradual. But does not this afford 
a strong presumption against its Divine origin ? For 
what was the conduct of God when He appointed a 
Head of the Jewish Church ? Was not the office and 
jurisdiction of the High Priest most distinctly in- 
stituted ? Was not its succession provided for ? 
Did it not spring at once into existence, in the full 

b 2 



20 



possession of all its powers ? Was it left to be de- 
veloped — and developed too, by usurpation ? Was 
its full recognition left to the days of corruption and 
idolatry : or was it not at once received, in the 
purest and brightest days of the Jewish religion ? If 
the Papacy had been instituted by God, it would not 
have been left to develop itself, by invading the 
liberties of all Churches ; by absorbing the rights of 
the Episcopate ; by exciting wars, rebellions, and 
persecutions ; by deposing Sovereigns ; by claiming 
and obtaining temporal jurisdiction over a great 
part of the world : and, in fine, by dividing the 
Christian Church by its ambition, and supporting 
errors and superstitions by its obstinacy. God 
would not have instituted in His Church a power 
thus vague and undefined, which was inevitably 
destined, under favourable opportunities, to make 
claims and aggressions, subversive of Christian 
liberty and perilous to Christian truth. 

That the evils of which the Papacy has poured 
such a flood on the Church, have not been unmin- 
gled with occasional advantages, I am far from 
meaning to deny. The wisdom of God is never 
more admirable, than in its production of good from 
evil. How few evils are unmingled ; and how much 
eventual benefit is frequently derived from actions 
and events in themselves most lamentable and de- 
structive ! But this should never blind us to the 
actual calamities of such actions or events ; 
and there is so much of evil connected with the 



21 



development of the Papal Supremacy, that be its 
incidental results what they may, the Christian 
must ever deplore its existence, and must " set his 
face like a flint" against its claims. 

If Bishop Horsley ever remarked that, " we 
want a Patriarch of the West," (p. 21.) it by no 
means follows that he was of opinion that such a 
functionary was necessary as "a centre of unity." 
It is possible that a central authority in the West, 
might be thought desirable by some persons, who 
would object to the institution of a universal Pa- 
triarch. And it is possible that others might not 
object to the institution of a universal Patriarch, 
provided there were no assumption of Divine right, 
and the office were regulated in all respects by the 
laws of the Church. Such notions one may con- 
ceive to have existed amongst some of those who 
have most strongly objected to the Papacy. 

Mr. Sibthorp thinks that the promise to St. Peter, 
like that made to the Apostles, (Matt, xxviii. 20.) 
implies a 'perpetual succession to the office of that 
Apostle. Surely he forgets, that in the one case 
there was no promise of perpetuity ; while in the 
other it was said, "Lo, I am with you always, even 
to the end of the world!' 

Arguments from the Necessity of Unity in Doctrine 
and Discipline. 

It is very true, that " every deviation from that 
government or form of Christ's Church which He 



22 



gave it, and from that discipline and worship which 
He personally or by His Apostles approved, is a 
most presumptuous innovation, and a daring disre- 
gard of the Divine will, and fraught with danger to 
the souls of men." (p. 23.) And hence we readily 
admit, or rather most firmly maintain, with the 
Church of England, that all sects or denominations, 
even supposing them to hold what are called funda- 
mental doctrines, are not included in the Church of 
Christ. I shall therefore pass without comment 
Mr. Sibthorp's arguments against this wild and 
latitudinarian notion, (p. 24 — 29.) and proceed 
to his remarks on the position maintained by those 
who believe the Church of England to be a Catholic 
and Apostolic Church. 

"Their view," he says, "on which they (in great 
part) justify their continuance in their present posi- 
tion of separation from the Catholic Church in 
communion with the See of Rome is, that the pre- 
sent Anglican Church is identically one and the 
same with that which St. Augustine planted in the 
sixth century, over which St. Thomas of Canterbury 
presided in the twelfth, and Warham at the com- 
mencement of the sixteenth ; as properly therefore 
a part of the Catholic Church under the presidency 
of Archbishop Howley as she ever was. This as- 
serted unity is surely not of a very obvious kind, but 
liable to some serious difficulties." (p. 29, 30.) 

I am ready to admit the general correctness of 
this statement, with proper exceptions. It is not 



23 



contended by any one that the Church of England 
is now identically one and the same with the ancient 
Church of England in all respects. She is now 
reformed : previously to the Reformation she was 
unreformed. She is now pure : she was formerly, 
for a time, tinged with Romish corruptions. This 
variety in her condition does not destroy her real 
identity, though it may render that identity less 
evident. Her unity may not be (l of a very obvious 
kind/' and may be l( liable to some difficulties" as 
Mr. Sibthorp asserts it to be ; and yet it may be 
perfectly real and certain notwithstanding. 

To test its validity, Mr. Sibthorp supposes the 
above-named four distinguished individuals to meet 
in conference, and asks, "Will they concur in doc- 
trine, discipline, or Church government ? Are they 
in a visible or a real unity on any of these topics 
among themselves ? Quite the reverse." (p. 30.) 

Let us see how far this assertion is borne out. In 
the first place then, those four prelates would re- 
ceive the same three Creeds- — the Nicene, the Atha- 
nasian, and that of the Apostles. They would 
equally condemn all the heresies condemned by the 
six (Ecumenical Synods. They would coincide in 
their belief in opposition to Arianism, Pelagianism, 
Sabellianism, Socinianism, and the Nestorian and 
Eutychian heresies. They would alike receive 
Baptism, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Ordination, 
Repentance and Absolution, the power of the keys, 
and many other acts, rites, and ceremonies. In 



24 



respect to discipline and Church government, they 
would alike recognise a ministry of three orders, as 
derived from Apostolic institution, and would ac- 
cord entirely on the powers of those orders respec- 
tively. Is this nothing like unity? Does it not 
demonstrate a real and absolute unity on a vast 
number of the most important points in religion ? 

" Can they worship at the same altar ?" (p. 30.) 
Yes, most assuredly : at least there is nothing to 
prevent the present Archbishop from uniting in 
public worship with St. Augustine and Thomas a 
Becket. And certainly there is nothing in our pre- 
sent service which could have displeased Warham, 
or any of his predecessors. 

" Am I then to believe that there is a real unity V s 
Most assuredly there is a real and substantial unity ; 
though it be true that some corruptions had been 
introduced into public service in the middle ages, 
and still more grievous corruptions had tinged the 
minds of the people. 

S€ It is undoubted that while three of them would 
enjoin me, on pain of heavy spiritual penalties, to 
offer up the sacrifice of the Mass, the inculcation 
on my flock of the doctrines, for example, of Purga- 
tory, of Invocation of the blessed Virgin and of 
the Saints- — the last-named, Dr. Howley, would as 
strongly forbid me to do the former, or to hold or 
to teach either of the latter." (p. 31.) 

Admitting that there would be some difference 
on these points, it remains to be seen whether the 



25 



difference is of such a nature as to destroy the 
essential oneness of the Church. Now supposing 
that the three first-named Archbishops received the 
Sacrifice of the Mass in a different sense from that 
in which it was condemned by the fourth — suppos- 
ing for instance that they received it as a spiritual 
sacrifice commemorative of Christ's death, while he 
condemned it in the sense of its being a continua- 
tion or reiteration of that Sacrifice ; where would 
be the real and essential difference in faith ? It is 
true that there would be a difference in expression 
and in discipline, because in the one case abuses 
and errors had not arisen or were not felt, which in 
the latter were felt and corrected ; but still the 
belief of the Church would remain essentially the 
same throughout. This was in fact the case, and 
therefore Mr. Sib thorp's difficulty is at an end. 

With reference to Purgatory and the Invocation 
of Saints, the three first-named would not have been 
authorized by the Church in teaching them as es- 
sentials of religion, for they had never been defined 
by any (Ecumenical Council, and were not gene- 
rally received as matters of faith in the Eastern 
and Western Churches. Consequently there would 
have been no contradiction in essentials — no con- 
trariety in faith between those who permitted such 
doctrines and practices at a time when they were of 
a less corrupt and pernicious nature than they 
afterwards became, and those who rejected them 
when they had become encumbered by intolerable 



28 



abuses, and when their evil nature had been fully 
proved by long experience. 

An individual Christian at different periods of 
his life may vary in his opinions and conduct, 
without ceasing to be a real believer. He may 
entertain erroneous views on some points in conse- 
quence of the prejudices of early education, or of 
imperfect information, or in deference to authority 
superior to his own. He may even exaggerate the 
importance of those points, so far as to condemn 
most strongly those who differ from him ; and yet, 
this very person may afterwards, on more full in- 
vestigation, be convinced that he has been mis- 
taken ; and may adopt widely different views and 
practices from those of his former life. And notwith- 
standing this change, the man may always have 
been a true believer. His variations may have 
never interfered with the substance and vitality of 
his religion. The careless and the superficial indeed 
may suppose, that there is so essential a contradic- 
tion between his tenets at different times that there 
has been no continuity of faith — that he has ab- 
jured his former religion — that if a Christian for- 
merly he can be so no longer ; or that if he be 
now a Christian, he could not have been so pre- 
viously to the alteration in his views. This is the 
argument of a thoughtless or uncandid reasoner — 
of one who overlooks one of the greatest and truest 
principles in religion, that "all error is not 

HERESY." 



27 



The case of a Church is analogous to that of an 
individual Christian. Consisting of a great number 
of individuals, it is subject to the same variations 
in different ages which an individual may experi- 
ence in his own life-time ; and yet the continuity of 
its faith, the substantial identity of its religion, may 
be always preserved. 

The Church of England in the time of Warham 
was as different in many of its features from what 
it had been in the time of St. Augustine, as it now 
is from what it was in the time of Warham ; yet no 
one pretends that the Church of Augustine was not 
that of Warham. In the one age Transubstan- 
tiation was unknown : in the other it was enforced as 
an article of faith. In the former, the worship of 
images was " execrated ;" in the latter it was sanc- 
tioned and approved. In the former, the Eucharist 
was administered in both kinds : in the latter, 
in one only. In the former, Indulgences were 
remissions of canonical Penances : in the latter, 
they were viewed as remissions of the penalties due 
to Divine justice. In the former, the Saints were 
addressed as creatures : in the latter, they were 
commonly worshipped with Divine honours. In the 
former, the Bishops were elected and ordained with- 
out reference to the See of Rome : all the import- 
ant affairs of the Church were regulated by its own 
Synods : in the latter, the See of Rome was in 
possession of absolute power. I need not detail all 
the points of contrast between the Church of Eng- 



28 

land as it existed in the time of Augustine and in 
that of Warham ; nor is it necessary to extend the 
investigation to the remainder of Christendom, and 
to trace the differences between its condition in the 
earlier and later ages. Enough I trust has been 
said to shew, that difference in doctrines and prac- 
tice does not always prove difference of faith ; and 
if the Church did not lose her continuity by intro- 
ducing innovations during the middle ages : . neither 
did she lose it by removing those innovations, and 
returning more or less closely to her original doc- 
trines and practice. 

If we do not see sufficient reason to exclude the 
Churches in Communion with Rome from the cha- 
racter of Christianity, it is not that we are blind to 
the corruptions which unhappily exist amongst 
them. We hold that they are most deeply in need 
of reformation : but as they do not seem to compel 
their members to hold doctrines actually heretical 
and directly contrary to faith ; nor to oblige them 
in all cases, to commit positive Idolatry; we see 
no sufficient reason to maintain that they are apo- 
state. At the same time, we disapprove of their 
errors and corruptions ; and we regard them as a 
feeble and unhealthy branch of the Church. 

Mr. Sibthorp cannot conceive that any real unity 
can exist in the Church, when two or more branches 
are opposed to each other on certain points of doc- 
trine or discipline. "It is no longer," he says, 
u such an unity as all the chief figures in the New 



29 



Testament to set it forth suppose ; for instance, 
that of a vine, an household, a family, a temple, a 
bride." (p. 33.) The figures of a " vine," a " temple," 
and a " bride," evidently signify the spiritual union 
of the Church with Christ, or its relation to Him. 
As to the figures of a " household," a " family," or 
a " kingdom," they certainly do not necessarily 
imply' such an absolute unity as Mr. Sib thorp con- 
tends for. Are households, families, and kingdoms 
never divided? Are they never separated into dif- 
ferent parties ? 

But to take the case of the Roman Church her- 
self. Has she never been divided ? Have not 
rival Pontiffs divided her communion? Have not 
Jesuits and Dominicans disputed vehemently on 
the most important doctrines ? Have not the ad- 
vocates and the opponents of the Immaculate Con- 
ception of the Virgin denounced each other as here- 
tics ? Has not the same degree of contrariety 
existed between the Cisalpine and Ultramontane 
parties ? Are there not contentions at this moment, 
on the Papal supremacy and authority, the celibacy 
of the Clergy, the use of the Latin language in the 
Liturgy, and other points of doctrine and disci- 
pline ? It may be, as Romanists assert, that their 
disputes do not affect the unity of Faith ; but 
assuredly there have been, and are, differences 
amongst them, which are inconsistent with that 
vision of perfect unify which Mr. Sibthorp has pic- 
tured to himself ; and if we admit that this apparent 



30 



diversity is consistent with a real unity of faith, 
though not of doctrinal tenets,, in the Roman 
Church ; why should it be conceived incredible, 
that diversities between the formal tenets of that 
Church, and those of other Churches, do not neces- 
sarily imply real contradiction in faith — such a con- 
tradiction as must exclude either one or the other 
from the pale of Christianity ? 

Had Mr. Sibthorp been satisfied of the claims of 
the Church of England to the character of a Ca- 
tholic and Apostolic Church, he would not have felt 
it necessary to enquire how far the errors of the 
Church of Rome extend, or whether they are or are 
not contrary to faith. 

Mr. Sibthorp seems to have thought himself 
bound to forsake the Communion of the Church of 
England, because the doctrines of the Roman 
Church did not appear objectionable to him on 
examination, (p. 35, 36.) This motive could only 
have arisen from a false view of the position of the 
English Church. He evidently was of opinion, that 
our separation from the Communion of the Roman 
Churches was voluntary — was our own act — and 
that we are unable to justify our position, except 
by imputing the most grievous and deadly errors to 
the Church of Rome. 

Little more remains to be added to what has 
been already said. I shall only advert to one or 
two points, and then conclude. Mr. Sibthorp 
(p. 37.) does not admit the plea that an individual 



31 



is "bound to remain in the Church in which the 
providence of God had placed him ; " because this 
would authorise heretics and schismatics to con- 
tinue in their errors. 

But surely if the Church in which we are placed 
be really Catholic and Apostolic, it must be wrong 
to separate voluntarily from her communion. The 
argument then turns entirely on whether the Church 
is or is not Catholic and Apostolic; and conse- 
quently it could never be employed to authorise 
Sectarians to remain in their errors. 

I shall not follow Mr. Sibthorp in his remarks on 
the principle said to be advocated by No. 90 of the 
Tracts for the Times. If, as he supposes, it be 
maintained by any persons, that the doctrines of 
Romanism, properly so called, may be lawfully held 
in the Church of England ; or that there is no 
diversity between the Churches ; and that commu- 
nion with the English Church is only justifiable on 
such a supposition, I cannot but agree with him 
that such an argument is unsupported by fact, and 
injurious to the character of the Church of England 
in every point of view. 

Some persons doubtless exaggerate the errors 
prevalent in the Church of Rome, and assail its 
formularies on certain points with more zeal than 
discretion. But this ought not to induce others to 
underrate the great and real corruptions and abuses 
for which Romanism is fairly responsible. Still less 
ought it to induce them to wish for the revival of 



32 



any notions or practices which the Church of Eng- 
land, in her soundest discretion, has removed ; or 
to express dissatisfaction with the institutions of 
this branch of the Catholic Church. Christian 
unity can never be promoted by w^eak concessions 
to error ; by diminished attachment to the Church 
in which Divine Providence has placed us ; or by 
harsh and unjust censures on the Reformation. 

With reference to Mr. Sib thorp's remarks on the 
Thirty-first Article, (p. 40, 41.) I would say that 
the Article in question was most clearly directed 
not merely against "private Masses," but against the 
doctrine of the Sacrifice of Masses commonly taught 
amongst Romanists ; and doubtless the same doc- 
trine is still very commonly held in their commu- 
nion. Nor is it merely on this point that grievous 
errors are prevalent amongst them : their views on 
Purgatory, Indulgences, and Image-worship, not 
to mention other points, merit censures equally 
severe with those which the Article has passed on 
their doctrines concerning the Sacrifice of Masses. 
Without doubt however, the language of the Coun- 
cil of Trent does not in all cases go to the extent of 
their popular doctrines. 

Mr. Sibthorp imagines (p. 45.) that the private 
devotions of the Church of Rome are of a more ex- 
alted character than he can elsewhere find, and 
employs this as an argument to justify his secession 
from the Catholic communion of the English 
Church. How many heretics and schismatics have 



33 



in various ages forsaken the true Church on pre- 
tence of seeking for greater edification beyond her 
pale ! He should have remembered, that if the 
Church of England be indeed Catholic and Apostolic, 
those devotions which are offered by separatists from 
her communion cannot be really pleasing to God. 
And he should also have reflected, that devotions 
and other religious acts in the Church of Rome are 
often so deeply mingled with superstition and Idol- 
atry, and performed on motives so erroneous and 
offensive to God, that even if they present in some 
respects an appearance of greater piety, they do 
not really contribute to the greater sanctity of the 
Church or to the salvation of souls, 



THE END, 



OXFORD : 
PRINTED BY I. SHRIMPTON, 



By the same Author. 



I. 

Origines Liturgicjs, or Antiquities of the English Ritual, and 
a Dissertation on Primitive Liturgies. 2 vols. 8vo. Price 16s. 

II. 

A Treatise on the Church of Christ, designed chiefly for the 
Use of Students in Theology. 2 vols. 8vo. Price £1 8s. 

III. 

A Compendious Ecclesiastical History, from the earliest 
period to the present time. 12mo. Price 4s. 6d. 

IV. 

The Apostolical Jurisdiction and Succession op the 
Episcopacy in the British Churches, Vindicated against the 
Objections of Dr. Wiseman in the Dublin Review. 12mo, 
Price 6s. 

V. 

An Enquiry into the Possibility of Obtaining Means for 
Church Extension without Parliamentary Grants. 8vo. 
Price Is. 

VI. 

Letters to N. Wiseman, D.D. on some of the Errors of 
Romanism. 8vo. 

* # * These Letters may be had separately. 



A SUPPLEMENT 

TO AN 

EXAMINATION 

OF 

MR. SI B THORP'S PAMPHLET, 

COMPRISING 

OBSERVATIONS 
on His 

"FURTHER ANSWER," &c. 



BY THE REV. WILLIAM PALMER, M.A. 

OF WORCESTER COLLEGE, OXFORD , 



OXFORD, . 
JOHN HENRY PARKER; 
J. G. F. AND J, RIVINGTON, LONDON, 



SUPPLEMENT, 

tfe. 



In offering some remarks on Mr. Sib thorp's 
defence of his former publication, it is not my 
intention to enter at large on all the topics embraced 
in his pamphlet, more especially as the subject has 
already engaged the attention of several able writers. 
In the following pages then it is proposed only to 
notice a very few of the leading points in Mr. 
Sib thorp's reply. 

1. The defence which is set up for the argument 
from the Levitical types, is advanced with much 
plausibility, and with a tone of great confidence ; 
but it will be found on examination to be wholly 
unavailing. 

My argument was, that since a type must be 
something of a different nature from its antitype — 
since the type is but a shadow, while the antitype 
is a substance — since the former is of an inferior or 
carnal nature, and the latter of a superior, spiritual 
nature — the external visible unity of the Jewish 
people (when it existed) ; their "strict, perfect, and 
evident unity of faith, of worship, of laws, of disci- 
pline, of religious ordinances their high-priest, 

b 2 



4 



SUPPLEMENT. 



" in his person, offices, and residence, a centre of 
unity to the whole nation far and near their 
priests and levites with mystical vestments ; their 
magnificent ritual, and their feast-days, could not 
have typified circumstances or institutions of the 
same nature under the Gospel. 

Mr. Sibthorp's own proofs and admissions esta- 
blish this argument in the most satisfactory manner. 
He cites (p. 6.) Schleusner's statement that the 
word " shadow," used by the Apostle to signify the 
typical character of legal institutions, " notat omnem 
lev em adumbrationem, symbolicam expressionem, 
imaginem lev em ac obscuram alicujus rei." He 
admits that the Jewish institutions are " a faint 
outline or sketch" of the Gospel dispensation, and 
that " there must always be" an " inferiority" of the 
type to the antitype "in some important respects." 
This being the case, I would ask, Whether the ex- 
ternal visible unity of a Christian Church, or even 
its unity in faith, was obscurely and slightly shadowed 
forth by the very same sort of unity in the Jewish ? 
Was the latter a mere "faint outline or sketch" of 
the former ? And again, Was the Jewish high 
priest " an obscure image" a "faint sketch" of the 
Priest imagined to preside with the same powers 
over the Christian Church ? Were the feast-days, 
the vestments, and the magnificence of the Jewish 
ritual, mere " slight adumbrations" of similar things 
in Christianity ? How, in short, can unity in com- 
munion, be a mere adumbration of unity in commu- 
nion ? or, unity in faith, of unity in faith ? or, an 



SUPPLEMENT. 



5 



earthly Head of the Church, of a similar earthly 
Head? There is nothing like " adumbration/ ' or 
''shadowing forth" in all this. The one portion is 
not a " faint sketch" of the other. Both are alike 
substantial and complete. There is no marked 
superiority of one over the other. The one is a 
repetition of the other — or a close imitation of the 
other ; and therefore they cannot possibly stand in 
the relation of type and antitype. 

All the examples of types and antitypes adduced 
in reply by Mr. Sibthorp, only confirm still more 
what has been already said. ft The blood of one 
creature shed before God on earth, was the type of 
the blood of another creature, far more dignified, 
and to nobler ends, shed before God on earth." 
(p. 71.) Certainly: the one was the blood of an 
irrational animal, shed for the sins of those who 
offered it : the other was the blood of One who was 
both God and Man : and it was shed for the sins of 
the whole world. " The sacrifice of the paschal 
lamb was a shadow of another more excellent sacri- 
fice." Certainly : it was a shadow of the sacrifice of 
the Incarnate God for the sins of the world. " The 
water of the flood prefigured or was a type of the 
water of baptism." Certainly : in the one case 
there was a salvation from temporal death ; in the 
other from eternal. Is it then " overstrained" or 
" mistaken" to maintain, that a type is something 
of a very different nature from its antitype ; and 
that the latter must be something of a far higher 
and more spiritual character than the former ? 



6 



SUPPLEMENT. 



It is a mere fallacy to argue that, because "the 
man Isaac bearing the wood of his offering is a type 
of the man Christ Jesus bearing His cross," (p. 8.) 
there is not necessarily any difference in nature 
between a type and its antitype. I have not con- 
tended that they must differ in every respect, I 
cited " the High Priest entering the earthly temple 
as a type of Jesus entering Heaven," though they 
shared the same human nature. All that is con- 
tended for is, that there must be some material 
difference in nature between a type and its antitype ; 
and Mr. Sibthorp's instance proves this : for the 
man Isaac bearing the wood of his offering, is the 
type — not of another man engaged in any similar 
act, but of the Incarnate God bearing His cross for 
the redemption of the whole world. To what a sub- 
lime elevation does the antitype rise above the type ! 

I need not point out how the other types adduced 
by Mr. S. (p. 8.) establish my position. Their 
consideration would add strength to the assertion 
u that the types of the Old Testament were always 
of a different nature from the things which they 
prefigured." 

Mr. Sib thorp infers (p. 8.) from my statement 
that the Fathers " speak of bishops, priests, and 
deacons, as holding offices corresponding to those of 
Aaron, the Priests, and Levites," that those writers 
" regarded the sacred priesthood and holy offices of 
the Old Testament Church as prefiguring those of 
the New." Here we have again the same sort of 
confusion between a correspondence or resembla?ice > 



SUPPLEMENT. 



7 



and a type. The Fathers to whom I referred did 
not speak of any typical relation between the Jewish 
Priesthood and the Christian Ministry : they simply 
stated the general similarity of rank and power 
between the three degrees of each ministry respec- 
tively. Thus Tertullian says, " Dandi quidem Bap- 
tismi jus habet Summus Sacerdos qui est Episcopus." 
Optatus, again, " Quid commemorem . . . diaconos 
in tertio, quid presbyteros in secundo sacerdotio 
constitutos ? Ipsi apices et principes omnium Episcopi 
&c." Jerome, " Ut sciamus traditiones apostolicas 
sumptas de Veteri Testamento, quod Aaron, et filii 
ejus, atque Levitae in Templo fuerunt, hoc sibi epi- 
scopi, et presbyteri, et diaconi vendicent in Ecclesia." 
These are the passages to which I referred, and to 
which many others of the same kind might be added. 
They are silent as to any typical relation between 
the Jewish and Christian ministers ; but they assert 
their correspondence or similarity. But supposing, 
for the sake of argument, that they had supposed 
the three degrees of the Jewish Priesthood to be 
typical of those of the Christian Ministry, Mr. 
Sibthorp's argument would gain nothing. For if 
Aaron was the type of every Christian Bishop, it 
follows that a Bishop is the highest spiritual ruler in 
the Church immediately under God ; and therefore, 
that if there be any superiority of one Bishop over 
another, it cannot be of Divine institution, but must 
arise either from usurpation, or from human and 
changeable regulations. The same conclusion fol- 
lows directly from the actual sentiments of the 



8 



SUPPLEMENT. 



Fathers above adduced. In comparing each Bishop 
to Aaron, they asserted his supremacy in the Church, 
and his essential equality with all other Bishops ; and 
this was undeniably the doctrine of the Catholic 
Church in general, as St. Jerome says, ie Ubicum- 
que fuerit episcopus, sive Roma?, sive Eugubii . . . 
ejusdem meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii. Potentia 
divitiarum et paupertatis humihtas vel sublimiorem 
vel inferiorem episcopum non facit. Ceeterum 
o nines Apostolorum successor es sunt a ." Hence St. 
Cyprian rejects the notion of any " Bishop of 
Bishops." Hence St. Gregory declares that the 
assumption of the title of " Universal Bishop" 
would be Antichristian ; for it is certain from 
Scripture that the Apostles were all supreme. 
" God hath set some in the Church : first Apostles, 
secondarily prophets" &c. ; and it was said to them 
individually and collectively, " Receive ye the Holy 
Ghost : whosesoever sins ye remit &c," and " Go ye 
therefore and teach all nations, . . and lo, I am with you 
always." So that there was no power in the Church 
above that of the Apostles • as St. Chrysostom says, 
" The Apostolate is not only the first of all dignities, 
but the root and foundation of all others V And 
the equality of the other Apostles with St. Peter in 
official power and dignity, is equally testified by the 
Fathers, as by St. Cyprian, " Hoc erant utique 
caeteri apostoli quod fuit Petrus, pari consortio prse- 
diti et honoris et potestatis c ," and by Isidore His- 

a Hieron. Epist. acl Evag-rium. 

b Chrysost. t. iii. Oper. p. 75. Ed. Ben. 

c Cypr. De Unit; Eccl, 



SUPPLEMENT. 



9 



palensis, " Ceeteri apostoli cum Petro par consor- 
tium honoris et potestatis acceperunt d and even 
by Cardinal Nicholas deCusa, " Scimus quod Petrus 
nihil plus potestatis a Christo recepit aliis Apo- 
stolis 6 ." I trust that I may now without presump- 
tion say, that Mr. Sib thorp's defence of his leading 
argument has only served still further to shew its 
utter fallaciousness. 

What has been already said of the essential 
difference between a type and its antitype, will 
suffice for an answer to Mr. Sib thorp's attempt to 
shew that the visible unity, feast-days, &c. of the 
Jews, prefigured those of the Church, (p. 9 — 13). I 
shall not therefore notice his arguments more parti- 
cularly than to observe, that he has entirely failed 
to prove from the Fathers that the Jewish feasts 
prefigured the Christian ; for no typical relation 
between them is mentioned in any of the passages 
which he has adduced. 

Mr. Sibthorp is of opinion, that I have met his po- 
sitions respecting the presence of God in the temple, 
the sevenfold light, and the sculptured and pour- 
trayed Angels, " by a simple supposition of other 
meanings," (p. 14.) and he remains satisfied with 
the persuasion, that those meanings may be quite 
correct, and yet may not interfere with the truth 
of what he has himself put forward. My argument 
was, and is, that the interpretations advanced by 
him in these points are purely conjectural— and, 

d Isid. Hisp. De Officiis, 1. ii. c. 5. 
e Cusanus, De Cone. Cath. 1. ii. c. 13. 



10 



SUPPLEMENT. 



consequently, that they can never afford any solid 
basis for argument, or for decisions on important 
points of Christian doctrine and morals. It is very 
true as he alleges (p. 15.) that a particular type 
may have several antitypes ; it is equally true that 
it may have only one antitype. How can Mr. 
Sibthorp prove that the particular types in ques- 
tion were intended to be fulfilled in several modes ? 
And if he cannot do this, then how can he maintain 
that his interpretation is true, when different mean- 
ings are given by the Fathers ? Surely the mere 
existence of some sort of similitude between certain 
legal and certain Christian institutions, does not in- 
fer, with any sort of probability, the typical relation of 
the former to the latter. Ingenuity might trace a great 
number of such imaginary antitypes for each legal rite 
or ceremony ; and were we to follow Mr. Sibthorp's 
example, and without any guide but our own private 
judgments, proceed to determine great points of doc- 
trine and morality on such grounds, it is impossible to 
say what amount of heresy, error, and schism might 
be the result. A real Catholic will found his belief 
and practice, not on uncertain applications of ob- 
scure passages ; not on the reveries of mystical in- 
terpretations unsupported by any cogent reason or 
authority; but on the clear and certain declama- 
tions of the Word of God, received and upheld by 
the unanimous voice of the Universal Church. 

II. Mr. Sibthorp occupies much space in endea- 
vouring to prove that the Church of England differs 
at present in some points of doctrine and discipline 



SUPPLEMENT. 11 

from the Anglo-Saxon Church • and he hence argues 
that it is quite absurd to imagine that the one is but 
the continuation of the other. It would be easy to 
meet all that he has said on these differences, and to 
prove that they do not interfere with the continuity 
of the Church. The discussion however would 
occupy too much time ; and I shall therefore merely 
revert to my reply, that Romanists themselves admit 
the Church of England previously to the Reforma- 
tion to have been the same as the Anglo-Saxon 
Church. But there were important differences be- 
tween them in doctrine and discipline ; and there- 
fore Mr. Sibthorp is inconsistent as a Romanist 
in denying the indentity of the English Church 
before and after the Reformation, on account of the 
mere fact that important differences in doctrine and 
discipline may be pointed out. I shall adduce a 
very few instances of the difference between the 
Anglo-Saxon Church and that of later times, em- 
ploying only such authorities as Mr. Sibthorp will 
admit fairly to represent their tenets. 

PRAYER TO SAINTS. 

Ancient English Church. Later English Church. 

It is written in the old law I pray thee, O Queen of 

that no man shall pray to any Heaven, comfort a sinner, and 

thing but to God alone : because give not thine honour to a 

no creature is worthy of that stranger. . . Hold me excused in 

honour; but He alone who is the the presence of thy Son Christ, 

Maker of all things. . . We desire whose wrath and fury I fear and 

intercession of holy men that dread ; for against thee only 

they will intercede for us to have I sinned. O Virgin Mary, 

their Lord and our Lord. be not averse from me, thou 

Nevertheless we do not pray who art filled with celestial 



12 



SUPPLEMENT. 



to them, as we do to God, nor 
will they suffer it ; as His angel 
said to John the Apostle when 
he would have fallen at his 
feet : ' Do it not, bow not thy- 
self to me, I am God's servant 
as thou art ; pray to God only.' 
— Anglo-Saxon Homily, Dom. i. 
in Quadrag ; TVheloc. in Bed. p . 
283. 



grace ; be thou- the guardian of 
my heart, seal me with the fear 
of God; grant me soundness of 
life and goodness of morals : and 
grant me to avoid sins, and love 
what is just. — Horse ad usum 
Sar. fol. 44. 

O William . . . cleanse us in 
death, grant thine assistance, 
remove the sins of our lives, and 
give us the joys of a celestial 
crown. — Ibid, fol. 78. 



IMAGES. 



In the year 792 Charles, king 
of the Franks, sent a synodal 
book to Britain directed to him 
from Constantinople, in which 
were found many things . . con- 
trary to the true faith; espe- 
cially because it was confirmed 
by the unanimous assertion of 
almost all the Eastern doctors 
. . that images ought to he adored, 

WHICH THECHURCH OF God AL- 
TOGETHER execrates. Against 
which ATbinus wrote an epistle, 
admirably confirmed by the au- 
thority of Holy Scripture, and 
directed it in the name of our 
bishops and princes to the king 
of the Franks. — Roger de Hove- 
don, Rer. Angl. Script, p. 405, 
Ed. Francof. 1601. 



Not only the human nature 
of Christ is to be adored, but 
also His manger, the wood of the 
cross, and all memorials of the 
Saviour. . . It is lawful to adore 
(such) divine things with Divine 
Worship, if the faith of the 
worshipper be such that he be- 
holds God as it were standing 
at the doors. . . Thus Paula 
adored the cross, not believing 
it to be God, but as if she be- 
held the Lord on it. — Thomas 
Waldensis, X)e Sacram., p. iii. 
c. 120. 

I swear to God . . that from 
this day forward I shall worship 
images with praying and offering 
unto them, in the worship of 
the saints that they be made 
after. — Oath made to Archbishop 
Arundel. Collier, ii. 599. 



TRANS UBSTANTIATION. 

The Sacrament of the body William Courtney, Archbishop 
and blood of Christ which we of Canterbury, and six other 



SUPPLEMENT. 



13 



receive are a divine thing, be- 
cause by them we are made 
partakers of the Divine nature, 
and yet the substance or nature 
of the bread and wine does not 
cease to exist. — Pope Gelasius, De 
duabus Naturis. 

By nature it (the Eucharist) 
is corruptible bread and cor- 
ruptible wine, and through the 
truth of the Lord's word it is 
truly the body and blood of 
Christ, yet not corporeally but 
spiritually. There is much dif- 
ference between that body in 
which Christ suffered, and that 
which is consecrated into the 
Eucharist &c. — Paschal Homily 
of the Anglo-Saxon Church. 



bishops, in 1382, pronounced 
the following doctrines heretical. 
"That the material substance 
of bread and wine remain after 
consecration in the sacrament 
of the altar." 

"Also, That Christ is not in 
the Sacrament of the altar, 
identically, truly, and really in 
His proper corporeal presence." 
— Wilkins, Concilia hi. 157, 



COMMUNION IN BOTH KINDS. 



We find that some persons, 
receiving the holy body only, 
abstain from the cup of the holy 
blood ; who without doubt, 
(since they are withheld by 
some unknown superstition), 
should either receive the Sacra- 
ment whole, or be repelled from 
the whole, because a division of 
the one and the same mystery 
cannot occur without a great 
sacrilege. —Pope Gelasius ,Dist '. 
2. de consecr. c. comperimus. 

While the bread is broken, 
while the blood is poured from 
the cup into the mouths of the 
faithful, what else is signified 
but His death on the Cross, and 
the flowing of His blood from 



Whereas in some parts of the 
world, certain persons presume 
rashly to assert that the Chris- 
tian people ought to receive the 
holy Sacrament of the Eucharist 
under both kinds of bread and 
wine . . this present holy gene- 
ral Council of Constance . . . 
declares, decrees, and deter- 
mines, that although Christ in- 
stituted this Sacrament after 
Supper, and administered it to 
His disciples under both kinds 
of bread and wine, yet notwith- 
standing this . . . and in like 
manner, although in the primi- 
tive Church this Sacrament was 
received of the faithful under 
both kinds, yet for the avoiding 



14 



SUPPLEMENT. 



His side ? — Lanfranc. Archbp. 
of Canterbury, de Ev.charisti<£ 
Sacramento. 

No one shall communicate, 
without receiving the body and 
the blood, separately ; except 
through necessity and precau- 
tion. — Council of Clermont, Can. 
28. 



any dangers and scandals, the 
custom has reasonably been in- 
troduced, that it be received by 
the laity only under the kind of 
bread. — Council of Constance, 
Sess. xiii. 



The above instances of differences on very impor- 
tant points are but a few of those which might be 
traced ; and they will sufficiently shew the fallacy of 
that reasoning which would deny the continuity of the 
Church, merely on the ground that such differences 
can be pointed out. No one denies that the English 
Church before the Reformation was the same Church 
which existed in Anglo-Saxon times, though it cer- 
tainly had been altered in some material respects in 
the course of ages. Therefore the mere fact that 
important changes did take place at the Reforma- 
tion; changes which, in various points, restored 
what had been originally received or practised, can- 
not afford any presumption that the English Church 
lost her continuity. We may in consequence pass 
over Mr. Sib thorp's allegations with reference to the 
Papal Supremacy, Invocation of Saints, the Sacrifice 
of the Mass f , Purgatory, and other points. Even 

f I would merely remark that our views of the public sendee of 
the Church in ancient times do not depend on the opinions of an 
individual Father, but on the nature of that sen-ice itself. The 
references then to Pope Gregory (p. 26.) cannot prove the offices' 
o f the Church in his days to have been objectionable, more espe- 
cially as he does not maintain the doctrine that the sacrifice of 
Christ on the Cross was repeated or continued in the Eucharist. 



SUPPLEMENT. 



15 



supposing that he could establish the full extent 
of what he contends for, or shew that there is a 
real difference in principle on these points (which 
however is by no means the case) , still we might re- 
ply, that we, on our parts, can shew differences fully 
as important between the Anglo-Saxon Church, and 
the Church just before the Reformation. 

III. I shall only make one or two further observ- 
ations, and then conclude. Mr. Sib thorp alleges 
that the mode in which I have shewn the agreement 
between the Church of England at all times, would 
equally shew that Donatists, Novatians, Arians, and 
Nestorians, belonged to the unity of the Church, 
(p. 32.) He forgets that the former sects were 
open separatists from the Universal Church, and 
that the latter were condemned by her formal judg- 
ments. Therefore they could not have been any 
part of the Church. It is plain that the case of 
those Sectaries is wholly irrelevant, and has nothing 
to do with the position of the English Church. 

There is nothing strange or absurd in the asser- 
tion that all sects holding fundamental doctrines do 
not belong to the Church of Christ. Mr. Sib thorp 
appears wholly to forget that there is such a sin as 
schism ; and that, putting aside the question as to 
whether episcopacy is or is not fundamental, there 
can be no doubt that those who have voluntarily 
separated from the communion of the Church, and 
from obedience to their legitimate pastors, as the 
founders of Dissent did, were really schismatics, 
and as such were cut off from the Christian Church. 



16 



SUPPLEMENT. 



I enquired whether " there are not contentions at 
this moment on the Papal Supremacy and authority, 
the celibacy of the Clergy, the use of the Latin 
language in the Liturgy." Mr. Sibthorp replies, 
" What contentions ? and where ? I affirm that they 
exist only in the imagination of the writer." (p. 37.) 
I think I have said "what" contentions are meant. 
l< Where V In Germany, Poland, Spain, America, 
and elsewhere. Had Mr. Sibthorp perused the Ency- 
clical Letter of Gregory XVI. (quoted in my Treatise 
on the Church, Part 1. Chap, xi, where the divi- 
sions of the Roman Church are more particularly ex- 
amined), and considered the state of Germany, 
and the continued existence of Hermesian doctrines 
lately developed in the Dublin Review, he would not 
have ventured to ask the questions which he has 
done. 

I now take my leave of this subject, and resign 
its further prosecution into the hands of other wri- 
ters, who are fully competent to the task which they 
have undertaken. 



6 83 * 



OXFORD \ 
PRINTED BY It SHBIMFTON, 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Jan. 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Onve 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 




:.. N o 




